Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala

Proposed Resource Management Plans and Final Environmental Impact Statement

Errata Sheet

Dear Reader: At the time of publication, we discovered some errors in the document. We wish 

to make you aware of these errors, which are described below in this errata sheet. Please note 

that the corrected versions of the following maps are consistent with the text in the associated 

document sections. 

Please note that the document contains the following errors. Corrected versions of the maps are 

available online at www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html or www.blm.gov/eplanning/az_pn/. 

Map 2-83, Black Canyon Management Unit Multiple Resource Allocations, Alternative 

E; Map 2-84, Castle Hot Springs Management Unit Multiple Resource Allocations, 

Alternative E; and Map 2-86, Harquahala Management Unit Multiple Resource 

Allocations, Alternative E. 

These maps depict route designations within areas proposed to be managed for 

wilderness characteristics and as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. In the 

corrected versions, references to route designations have been deleted from these maps. 

The Proposed RMP does not contain specific, proposed route designations in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. Proposed route designations will be developed in 

a future phase of plan implementation. The public will have the opportunity to contribute 

to the identification of issues and the development of route designation alternatives and 

travel management plans for these areas. 

Map 2-90, Morgan City Wash Road, Alternative E. The Proposed RMP does not include 

an area to be managed for wilderness characteristics immediately west of Lake Pleasant. 

This designation has been deleted in the corrected version of this map. 

Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3 includes a statement that “a copy of all comments received by 

the Phoenix District is available on a CD included with this document.” The public 

comment letters are not included on a CD. They are being posted online at 

www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html and are available for review at the BLM Phoenix District 

Office. 

The following parcels are shown on Map 2-79 but are not listed in Appendix R, Lands 

Available for Disposal. Add the following parcels to Appendix R: Township 2 North, 

Range 3 West, Section 14, E 1⁄2, 320.00 acres; and Township 2 North, Range 3 West, 

Section 26, N 1⁄2, 320.00 acres.

ABSTRACT

The Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Proposed Resource Management Plans

and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMPs/FEIS) describes and analyses five alternatives for 

managing approximately 967,000 acres of Public Land in Central Arizona, north and west of Phoenix, 

AZ. Information provided by the public, other agencies and organizations, and BLM personnel has been 

used to develop and analyze the Alternatives in this PRMPs/FEIS. Alternative A is the No Action 

alternative and represents continuation of current management. Alternative B emphasizes recreation and 

resource development. Alternative C makes land available for recreation and resource development with 

greater opportunities to experience natural settings than in Alternative B. Alternative D emphasizes 

preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. 

Alternative E, the agency Proposed Alternative, provides for a balance between authorized resource use 

and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources.

Major issues addressed in the PRMPs/FEIS include identification of lands that would be made available 

for disposal, management of recreation and public access, designation and management of Special 

Designations, management of areas having wilderness characteristics, and management of visual 

resources.


United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Hassayampa Field Office

21605 N. 7th Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85027

In reply refer to: 1610-5.G.1.4

May, 2008

Dear Reader:

Enclosed for your review are the Proposed Resource Management Plans (PRMPs) and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Agua Fria National Monument and BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. The PRMPs/FEIS were prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

in consultation with cooperating agencies, taking into account public comments received during this 

planning effort. They provide a framework for the future management direction and appropriate use of

these planning areas, located in Maricopa County and Yavapai County, Arizona. The document contains 

both land use planning decisions and implementation decisions to define the BLM‘s management of the

Agua Fria National Monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

These PRMPs and FEIS have been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The PRMPs are largely 

based on Alternative E, the preferred alternative in the Draft Resource Management Plans/Environmental 

Impact Statement (DRMPs/DEIS), which was released on January 6, 2006. The PRMPs/FEIS contains 

the Proposed Plans, a summary of changes made between the DRMPs/DEIS and PRMPs/FEIS, a

summary of the written and verbal comments received during the public review period for the Draft 

RMPs/DEIS, and responses to the comments.

Pursuant to BLM‘s Planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2, any person who participated in the planning 

process for these PRMPs, and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected, may protest approval 

of this PRMP and the land use planning decisions therein within 30 days from the date the Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register. Please see 

the accompanying protest regulations in the pages that follow. E-mailed and faxed protests will not be 

accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also provides the original letter by either regular or 

overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period. Under these conditions, the BLM will 

consider the e-mailed or faxed protest as an advance copy and will afford it full consideration. If you wish 

to provide the BLM with such advance notification, please direct faxed protests to the attention of Brenda 

Hudgens-Williams, BLM protest coordinator, at 202-452-5112, and e-mailed protests to:

Brenda_Hudgens-Williams@blm.gov. 

All protests, including the follow-up letter (if e-mailing or faxing) must be in writing and mailed 

to the following address:

Regular Mail: Overnight Mail:

Director (210) Director (210)

Attention: Brenda Hudgens-Williams Attention: Brenda Hudgens-Williams

P.O. Box 66538 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 1075

Washington, D.C. 20035 Washington, D.C. 20036
The regulations comprise critical elements of your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As 

much as possible, reference or cite the planning documents or available planning records (e.g. meeting 

minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.) To aid in ensuring the completeness of your protest, a 

protest check list is attached following this letter. This is also available online at http//:www.blm.gov/.

The BLM Director will make every attempt to promptly render a decision on each protest. The decision 

will be in writing and will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The 

decision of the BLM Director shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in 

your protest, be advised that your entire protest – including your personal identifying information – may 

be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your protest to withhold from public 

review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Unlike land use planning decisions, implementation decisions are not subject to protest under the BLM

planning regulations but are subject to administrative remedies and review, primarily through appeals to 

the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), Interior Board of Land Appeals pursuant to 43 CFR, Part 4 

Subpart E. Implementation decisions generally constitute the BLM‘s final approval allowing on-the 

ground actions to proceed. Where implementation decisions are made as part of the land use planning 

process, they are still subject to the appeals process or other administrative review as prescribed by 

specific resource program regulations after the BLM resolves the protests to land use planning decisions 

and makes a decision to adopt or amend a Resource Management Plan (RMP).

These administrative remedies for final implementation decisions usually take the form of appeals to 

OHA, though for certain proposed or non-final implementation decisions, such as proposed grazing 

decisions, the regulations provide for an internal agency review (usually a protest to the Authorized 

Officer) which must be completed before the final implementation decision can be appealed to the OHA. 

This type of protest to the Authorized Officer should not be confused with the protest of land use 

planning decisions to the BLM Director.

Upon resolution of all land use plan protests, the BLM will issue two Approved RMPs and two Records

of Decision (RODs). The Approved RMPs and RODs will be mailed or made available electronically to 

all who participated in the planning process and will be available to all parties through the ―Planning‖ 

page of the BLM national website (http://www.blm.gov/planning), or by mail upon request. The 

Approved RMPs and RODs will include the appeals process for implementing decisions that may be 

appealed to the Office of Hearing and Appeals following its publication.

Sincerely,

Steven Cohn

Field Manager, Hassayampa Field Office
[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 43, Volume 2]

[Revised as of October 1, 2002]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 43CFR1610.5-2]

[Page 20]

 TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIOR

 CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

PART 1600--PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING--Table of Contents

 Subpart 1610--Resource Management Planning

Sec. 1610.5-2 Protest procedures.

 (a) Any person who participated in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected 

by the approval or amendment of a resource management plan may protest such approval or amendment. A protest 

may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during the planning process.

 (1) The protest shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director. The protest shall be filed within 30 days of 

the date the Environmental Protection Agency published the notice of receipt of the final environmental impact 

statement containing the plan or amendment in the Federal Register. For an amendment not requiring the preparation 

of an environmental impact statement, the protest shall be filed within 30 

days of the publication of the notice of its effective date.

 (2) The protest shall contain:

 (i) The name, mailing address, telephone number and interest of the person filing the protest;

 (ii) A statement of the issue or issues being protested;

 (iii) A statement of the part or parts of the plan or amendment being protested;

 (iv) A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during the planning 

process by the protesting party or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the 

record; and

(v) A concise statement explaining why the State Director's decision 

 is believed to be wrong.

 (3) The Director shall promptly render a decision on the protest. The decision shall be in writing and shall set 

forth the reasons for the decision. The decision shall be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt 

requested.

 (b) The decision of the Director shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior.
Resource Management Plan Protest

Critical Item Checklist

The following items must be included to constitute a valid protest

whether using this optional format, or a narrative letter.

(43 CFR 1610.5-2)

BLM‘s practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. 

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your 

comment, be advised that your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses, will be available 

for public inspection in their entirety.

Resource Management Plan (RMP) or Amendment (RMPA) being protested:

Name:

Address:

Phone Number: ( )

Your interest in filing this protest (how will you be adversely affected by the approval 

or amendment of this plan?):

Issue or issues being protested:

Statement of the part or parts of the plan being protested:

Chapter:

Section:

Page:

(or) Map:

Attach copies of all documents addressing the issue(s) that were submitted during the 

planning process by the protesting party, OR an indication of the date the issue(s) 

were discussed for the record.

Date(s):

A concise statement explaining why the State Director’s decisions is believed to be 

wrong:
s-i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management Plans and 

Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) have been prepared to provide guidance on current and 

future management decisions for the Hasssayampa Field Office, a unit within the Phoenix District of the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These plans represent the culmination of many months of 

concerted planning efforts on the part of Phoenix District staff, Arizona State Office staff, representatives 

of communities located within the planning areas, cooperating and collaborating government agencies, 

special interest and user groups, and many hundreds of concerned citizens. The proposed Resource 

Managem Plans will enable the BLM to manage both the Agua Fria National Monument (AFNM) areas 

surrounding Phoenix metropolitan area through a comprehensive plan that will guide BLM management 

actions for years to come. 

Combined, the Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Areas encompass 

more than 3,000,000 acres in a complex mosaic of land ownerships and jurisdictions. BLM manages the 

resources on approximately 967,000 surface acres within these planning boundaries, including the entire 

70,900 acres of the Agua Fria National Monument, and retains subsurface (mineral) rights to an 

additional 725,100 acres. The Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala RMPs/EIS are 

vital to creating a framework for future planning and decision-making efforts within the context of such 

complex ownership. These lands are unique. Located within these planning boundaries are 

archaeological sites and artifacts found nowhere else on earth, providing researchers with critical insights 

into the lifestyles of the peoples who first settled this region of the southwest. The lands are home to 

pronghorn antelope, mule deer, white-tailed deer, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, black bear, javelina, 

countless native songbirds, migratory waterfowl, and endangered and special-status species such as bald 

eagle, southwestern willow flycatcher, Sonoran desert tortoise, and native fish species such as Gila chub 

and desert pupfish. Vegetation throughout the area ranges from creosotebush in the desert flats to 

ponderosa pine at higher elevations. The varied panorama of mountains, mesas, grasslands, and high and 

low desert vistas provides many thousands of residents and visitors each year with unparalleled 

recreational opportunities, and many thousands more rely on these lands for their livelihood through 

mining, grazing, and tourism. As the population of the Phoenix metropolitan area continues to grow, the 

BLM-administered lands located within the Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Areas will undoubtedly receive increasing pressure. After considerable deliberation on the part 

of the BLM, its partners, and local communities, we believe a broad consensus to wisely guide 

management of these very valuable resources. 

This Proposed Plan/FEIS was prepared under the authorities of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, in accordance with BLM planning regulations, 43 code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

1610.2(f)(3) and National Environment Policy Acjt (NEPA) regulations, 40 CFR 1502.9(a).
s-ii
s-iii

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of preparing the Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala RMPs is to 

provide plans that will guide future land management actions within the planning areas. These documents 

must provide not only adequate guidance for management actions but also show that actions taken were 

supported by the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) processes.

The need for the preparation of the RMPs has been established by three principal factors: the Presidential 

Proclamation creating the monument as a discrete management unit, the degree of urban expansion and 

population growth in the planning areas and vicinity, and the time that has elapsed (approximately 15 

years) since the last major planning efforts that encompassed the Agua Fria National Monument and 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

Planning Issues and Management Concerns 

Identified During Scoping

The most important step in developing a RMP is to identify relevant issues and concerns. An issue is 

defined as an opportunity, conflict, or problem regarding the use or management of public lands. All 

comments received during the public scoping process were assigned, based on content, to one of 12 

designated issue categories. Comments were further divided into various sub-issues within each category. 

All comments were read, evaluated, and manually entered into an analytic database. Figures 1 and 2 

depict the most frequently mentioned issues for each planning area, which reflected a wide range of 

public concerns.
s-iv

Agua Fria National 

Monument

38.3%

15.0%

11.9%

10.7% 10.1%

6.4%

2.9% 1.9% 1.5% 1.0%

0.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Recreation and Public Access

Wilderness and Special Areas

Lands and Realty

Rangeland Management

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Visual Resource Management

Fire Management

Wildlife and Fisheries Management

Mineral Rights

Hazardous Materials / Solid Waste

Soils, Water, and Air

Figure 1. Public Response by Issue – Agua Fria National Monument Planning Area

Recreation and Public Access

Management of, and continued access for recreation use of the monument, while protecting the resources 

it was created to protect, is a major issue in the plan. The RMP explores options to allow and manage 

recreation uses.

Special Area Designations

The EIS discusses the possibility of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and the segments 

of the Agua Fria River previously recommended suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation.

Wilderness Characteristics

A citizen based wilderness study area proposal was submitted. Much of the monument was not 

previously inventoried for resource values associated with wilderness characteristics because the lands 

were not under BLM jurisdiction when the last round of inventories was done. BLM conducted an 

inventory as directed by Section 201 of FLPMA and found some areas to have wilderness character. The 

EIS explores alternative ways to manage these areas.
s-v

Lands and Realty

Lands within the monument must be retained, but private lands within the boundary could be acquired. In 

addition, alternative options for management of a utility corridor along the western boundary of the 

monument are discussed in the EIS.

Rangeland Management

Grazing within sensitive riparian habitat is a concern within the monument. In addition, fences used to 

manage livestock are a potential barrier to pronghorn movement.

Use of native species in mitigation and restoration, and diligence in preventing infestations of invasive 

species was an issue among some citizen groups.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

The Agua Fria National Monument was created to preserve the outstanding cultural resources within its 

boundaries, both historic and prehistoric. The educational and scientific use of the resources, along with 

the preservation of the sites is of major interest. Alternatives in the EIS explore varying scenarios for 

achieving this balance.

Visual Resource Management

Preservation of the natural appearance of the landscape is of concern within the monument. In addition, 

maintaining the existing natural views in some areas is also of interest.

Fire Management

Most of the monument is within a fire dependent ecosystem. Prescribed fire is currently used to maintain 

the high desert grasslands. There is an interest in re-establishing natural fire cycles, but the monument is 

also adjacent to a couple of small communities that could be vulnerable to wildfires.

Wildlife and Fisheries Management

The monument contains habitat for several listed or candidate species, including the Gila Topminnow. In 

addition, several sensitive wildlife species are on the monument, including a small isolated population of 

pronghorn that are dependent on the central Arizona grassland ecosystem, including the monument, for 

their survival.

Minerals

Though the monument is withdrawn from mining laws, two active mining claims continue to exist. These 

claims are held by prospecting clubs.
s-vi

Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste

Though there is one abandoned mine within the monument known to have hazardous material problems, 

it is on a patented mining claim and currently poses minimal hazard to BLM-managed lands or users due 

to limited public access. The greater issue is with trash dumping on and around the monument. Besides 

the unsightliness of the dumping, the potential exists for risks to public health and safety from household 

or other hazardous waste.

Water

The proclamation awarded BLM a Federal reserved water right within the Agua Fria National Monument. 

Water, and the riparian vegetation it supports, contributes considerably to the values described in the 

proclamation. The question of how we will quantify and protect the water right is of concern.

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning

Area

38.5%

36.2%

6.2% 5.7% 5.3%

2.2% 1.9% 1.4% 1.4% 0.9% 0.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Lands and Realty

Recreation and Public Access

Visual Resource Management

Rangeland Management

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Wilderness and Special Areas

Mineral Rights

Wildlife and Fisheries Management

Hazardous Materials / Solid Waste

Fire Management

Soils, Water, and Air

 Figure 2. Public Response by Issue – Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 
s-vii

Lands and Realty

The most common comment received regarding the Lands and Realty category was pertaining to land 

tenure. In general, the public wants the public lands to remain public. Transfer of land title to private 

land owners was generally considered undesirable.

Recreation and Public Access

In general, public sentiment expressed was in favor of maintaining public access to public lands, and to 

manage for diverse recreation experiences. Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use is increasing, and owners of 

these vehicles want continued access to BLM aministered land and some assurance they will have a place 

to enjoy their recreation pursuits in the future.

Visual Resources

Rapid urban growth in central Arizona has increased the public‘s awareness of open space and scenic 

quality. Citizens have expressed an intense interest in keeping the landscapes on land as natural 

appearing as possible.

Rangeland Management

Public sentiment generally supports continuation of grazing in this region. Concern was expressed about

the health of riparian areas and the spread of invasive species infestations.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Comments concerning this issue generally centered on increasing protection for sites and halting site 

vandalism. The potential for livestock damage to sites was also an item of comment.

Special Designations

Comments were received concerning the protection of sensitive resources and habitats within existing or 

new special management areas, such as Areas of Critical Environment Concern. 

Minerals

Locatable mineral extraction within the planning areas is localized and inluenced by fluctuating prices for 

metals. However, there is intense interest in the recreational pursuit of gold as evidenced in the large 

participation in clubs such as the Gold Prospectors Association of America and the Roadrunners Gold 

Prospectors Club. 

In addition, the rapid growth in the urban area is increasing demand for sand, gravel, and decorative rock. 

These saleable materials can often be found on non-Federal lands, but interest in extraction from Federal 
s-viii

lands is increasing. It is estimated that between 60 and 70% of the decorative rock produced in the 

Phoenix Metro Area come from Public Lands (Donaldson 2006). 

There is widespread abuse and/or misunderstanding of the 1872 Mining Laws, as it is concerned with 

mining claims and occupancy. Occupancy is governed by the 43 CFR 3715 regulations and approval for 

occupancy must be obtained from BLM prior to occuping the public lands. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Management

The preservation of land for both game and non-game wildlife is increasing. As the urban area expands, 

habitat is lost for many wildlife species. Development is also fragmenting habitat, reducing the viability 

of what remains. Many species in the Sonoran Desert require large land areas. Long term preservation of 

species, especially Sensitive, Threatened, and Endangered species, will require preservation of large areas 

of unfragmented habitat and focused management of sensitive and uncommon habitats such as riparian.

Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste

Illegal dumping of household waste is an increasing problem within both planning areas. Besides being 

unsightly, there is a potential for hazardous materials to be dumped as well. In addition, there are many 

abandoned mines within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area that pose the potential for containing 

hazardous materials.

Fire Management

Allowing natural fire cycles to reestablish on appropriate lands is a public concern. At the same time, the 

wildland-urban interface (WUI) is expanding as population increases in central Arizona bring residences 

closer to areas vulnerable to wildfires. Identifying and conducting the appropriate fire management for 

specific locations are concerns.

Water and Air

Protecting surface water from declining quality and quantity is an issue. Also, since a large part of central 

Arizona is within a PM10 nonattainment area, managing BLM-managed lands to maintain air quality 

standards is also of concern.

Wild Burros

Management of a wild burro herd in the Harquahala and Bighorn Mountains area was of concern to the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD).
s-ix

Alternatives

NEPA regulations and BLM planning regulations require the formulation of a reasonable range of 

Alternatives that seek to address the identified issues and management concerns. The BLM developed 

five Alternatives, including the ―No Action‖ and ―Preferred‖ Alternatives. The Preferred Alternative, 

modified in response to public comment, is now the Proposed Plan. Each of the five Alternatives varies 

in both context and intensity of management actions and comprises a set of Desired Resource of Future 

Conditions, special designations, land use allocations, and the management actions needed to implement 

the alternative. Alternatives must meet the purpose and need for the EIS and the purpose and significant 

statement for the monument; 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. Under all Alternatives 

the BLM will manage the public lands in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and BLM 

policy and guidance.

Alternative A (No Action) is the current management situation for both the monument and the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. Alternative A serves as a baseline for comparison with the other 

Alternatives. 

Alternative B entails increased public use and more recreation-related development, consistent with 

protection of monument resources. It also allows visitation and development within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area while ensuring resource protection is not compromised.

Alternative C provides visitors with opportunities to experience the natural landscapes and cultural 

resource setting of the monument with more restrictive decisions than Alternative B. In the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, there is greater emphasis under Alternative C on identifying and protecting 

undeveloped landscapes than in Alternative B.

Alternative D emphasizes the preservation of undeveloped, primitive landscapes on the monument, 

resulting in limited public use and the withdrawal of authorized grazing. The Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area emphasizes natural landscapes and non-motorized recreation, with more management 

dedicated to maintaining primitive recreation opportunities than under the other Alternatives.

Alternative E (Proposed Plan) combines elements selected from the other Alternatives that have 

subsequently been studied and further refined. This Alternative is designed to respond in the most 

comprehensive manner possible to each of the issues and management concerns identified throughout the 

planning process. BLM has determined that the management actions presented in Alternative E will 

provide the optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term 

sustainability of sensitive resources within each of the planning areas.
s-x

Table E-1 Comparison of Key Alternative Components

Alternative A Acres Alternative B 

Acres

Alternative C Acres Alternative D Acres Alternative E Acres

Land Tenure 15,274 acres for Sale, 

39,100 acres for 

Exchange, 54,370 acres 

total.

58,400 acres for 

Sale or Exchange

49,100 acres for Sale or 

Exchange

None 29,870 acres for Sale, 9,525 for Exchange, 

39,395 acres total

Areas of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACEC)

Two for 9,660 acres One for 640 acres Ten areas for 56,520 

acres

Nine areas for 205,870 

acres

Four areas for 89,970 acres

Congressionally 

Designated 

Wilderness

Five Areas for 96,820 

acres

Five Areas for 

96,820 acres

Five Areas for 96,820 

acres

Five Areas for 96,820 

acres

Five Areas for 96,820 acres

Lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics

None One area for 

56,040 acres

Eight areas for 107,843 

acres

Eighteen areas for 

140,235 acres

Nine areas for 88,179 acres

Special Recreation 

Management Areas 

and Recreation 

Management Zones 

(SRMA and RMZ)

None Nine areas for 

149,760 acres

Nine areas for 182,800 

acres

Seven areas for 56,240 

acres

Fifteen areas for 678,835 acres 

Mineral Withdrawal 

or Closure

Closed to:

Location – 171,680 

acres

Lease – 171,680 acres

Sale –

172,510 acres

Closed to:

Location – 171,680 

acres

Lease – 171,680 

acres

Sale –

268,260 acres

Closed to:

Location – 188,450 

acres

Lease – 188,190

Sale –

325,970 acres

Closed to:

Location – 457,664 

acres

Lease – 464,734 acres

Sale –

480,864 acres

Closed to:

Location – 171,940 acres

Lease – 171,680 acres

Sale –

172,780 acres
s-xi

Public Involvement 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decision-making process is conducted in accordance with the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, U.S. Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations, and Department of the Interior (DOI) and BLM policies and procedures 

implementing NEPA. NEPA and the associated regulatory and policy framework requires that all Federal 

agencies involve interested groups of the public in their decision-making, consider reasonable alternatives 

to proposed actions, and prepare environmental documents that disclose the potential impacts of proposed 

actions and alternatives. 

The Phoenix District holds as a priority, collaborative management that engages local communities, 

organizations, and citizens. Public involvement, consultation, and coordination have been at the heart of 

the planning process leading to these Proposed Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This was accomplished through public meetings, informal 

meetings, individual contacts, news releases, planning bulletins, a planning Web site, and Federal 

Register notices.

Very early in the planning process, the BLM contracted with James Kent Associates (JKA) to work with 

residents and community groups in the planning areas regarding their issues and concerns. JKA‘s staff 

and BLM employees visited the communities of Wickenburg, Yarnell, Buckeye, Tonopah, Castle Hot 

Springs, New River, Black Canyon City, Cordes Junction, Mayer, Dewey, Humboldt, and Prescott 

Valley. They visited Phoenix, Flagstaff, and Prescott, talking with environmental and recreation groups. 

Citizens discussed their concerns with land use management and suggested ideas for improving current 

management practices. Residents in some areas even conducted their own community surveys in order to 

provide input and guidance to BLM in the planning process.

Ten scoping meetings were held in central Arizona communities. The meetings were structured to have an 

open house period, followed by a meeting/presentation where speakers could voice their concerns. BLM 

resource specialists were available to provide information and respond to questions. During the scoping 

meetings, 564 people registered their attendance with 169 offering to speak. Comments from the public 

were collected during the scoping meetings and throughout the scoping period through a variety of 

methods including mail, fax, and email.

BLM continued collaboration efforts by including communities in the formulation of Alternatives. 

Workshops were held throughout the planning area to give citizens the opportunity to refine issues, 

discuss visions for the public lands, and begin exploring alternative ways to manage the lands and 

resources. Citizens also submitted formulated Alternatives, as well as vision statements, for specific 

community areas or resources. These were also considered in the range of Alternatives and analyzed in 

the EIS. 

When the Preliminary Draft Alternatives had been developed, BLM distributed Alternatives to the public 

and held four additional public meetings. The public responded with nearly 2,000 comments concerning 

the measures developed in those alternatives. Public comments were taken into consideration as the 

planning team prepared the Alternatives later published in Draft RMPs/EIS. 

After publication of the Draft RMP/EIS on January 6, 2006, the public and cooperating agencies had a 

total of 90 days to comment on the Preliminary Draft. The document was distributed throughout the 

planning area and was also available through e-planning (an interactive online database). Prior to the 

formal public comment meetings, BLM held a total of six e-Planning workshops throughout the planning 
s-xii

area to help the general public get acquainted with this new medium of reading and commenting on the 

Draft RMPs/EIS.

BLM held a total of eight formal public meetings throughout the planning area during the 90 day 

comment period. The primary objective of these meetings was to receive comments from the public. 

Similar to the scoping meetings, BLM specialists were available to provide information and responses to 

questions. Meeting attendees had the option of either verbally speaking to the BLM staff at the meeting, 

or they could write and hand in comment sheets at the meeting. The meetings had as few as six attendees 

in Buckeye to over 85 attendees in the Dewey-Humboldt community. 

The 90 day public comment period ended on April 6, 2006. A total of 431 individual comment letters and 

1,046 form letters (consisting of six separate form letters) were received by the Phoenix District. In order 

to properly analyze all of the comments received, the BLM followed the USDA Forest Service Content 

Analysis Team (CAT) process for comment analysis. After all of the comment letters were parsed, 

separated, and grouped according to the concern and rational, they were responded to by the resource 

specialist at the Phoenix District. For a more detailed analysis of this process, please refer to Section 5.3.3 

Comment Analysis Process.
s-xiii

Affected Environment

This section provides an overview of existing conditions in the affected environment of the Agua Fria 

National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala planning areas.

Special Designations

Within the entire planning area there are five designated wilderness areas totaling 96,820 acres, one Back 

Country Byway, two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (totaling 9,060 acres), and three segments 

of the Agua Fria River determined to be suitable for Wild (12.1 miles) or Scenic (10.3 miles) designation 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Lands and Realty

Eight utility corridors criss-cross the planning area, providing available locations for current and future 

energy delivery to the urbanizing Phoenix Metropolitan area. Meetings with the public and energy 

utilities indicated the existing corridor system was sufficient to meet future demands.

Though central Arizona is one of the fastest growing population centers in the United States, adequate 

lands to support community growth exist in both Arizona State Trust and private ownership.

Soil Resources

Soils in the planning areas tend to be shallow and of various textures. Many of the soil types are 

vulnerable to disturbance from such activities as driving off-highway vehicles away from existing roads. 

Surface disturbances are slow to recover in the desert environments, leaving exposed soil vulnerable to 

accelerated wind and water erosion.

Air Quality

EPA has designated three nonattainment areas in central Arizona, one for particulate matter up to 10 

microns (PM10), one for ozone, and one for carbon-monoxide (CO). The primary sources of particulates 

in urban areas are construction and dust from vehicle travel. On public lands, tailpipe emissions from 

various types of motorized vehicles contribute to overall levels of particulates and carbon monoxide.

Though any surface disturbance can increase production of dust from BLM-administered lands, 

motorized vehicles on unpaved roads are the primary source. The nonattainment areas generally 

encompass the urbanized zone with only a few thousand acres of public land within them. Maricopa 

County has developed standards for implementing the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

achieving attainment and BLM must comply with county standards on lands within the nonattainment 

areas.
s-xiv

Water Resources

The planning areas lie within the drainages of two major river systems, the Hassayampa River in the west 

and the Agua Fria River in the east. In the Sonoran Desert, surface water— especially reliable perennial 

surface water— is a rare and particularly valuable resource. Most of the historical locations of reliable 

surface water have been lost to urbanization and the remaining locations serve as the most important 

wildlife habitats in the region. Groundwater pumping in the region may be affecting surface water 

availability by lowering water tables that support spring production and aquifers that occasionally emerge 

in river bottoms. Surface water quality, where it remains, has been determined by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) in most cases to be ―limited‖, containing pollutants above 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. The most common pollutants contributing to these 

―limited‖ streams are fecal coliforms, arsenic, and turbidity.

Biological Resources

The planning areas contain primarily Sonoran Desert, Desert Grassland, and Interior Chaparral vegetation 

communities and animals associated with them. Of all habitats within the planning areas, the 140 miles 

of riparian corridors are most important, supporting a variety of rare plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, and 

native fishes; including listed and candidate threatened and endangered species. The list of known 

species includes the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus occidentalis), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), desert pupfish 

(Cyprinodon macularius), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), and Gila chub (Gila intermedia).

Upland areas contain some of the finest examples of Sonoran Desert vegetation communities, including 

paloverde-saguaro cactus, easily accessible to residents of central Arizona. The most sensitive wildlife 

species dependent on these uplands is desert tortoise. The planning areas contain 93,616 acres of desert 

tortoise habitat classified as Category I; 419,529 acres classified as Category II; and 136,671 acres 

classified as Category III.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

The Agua Fria National Monument was created primarily to preserve the outstanding cultural resources 

within its boundary. Over 400 sites, including prehistoric pueblo ruins and spectacular rock art, are 

known within the monument. Thousands of undiscovered sites may also be there. Outside the 

monument, there is an abundance of both prehistoric and historic cultural resources including archaic 

hunter-gatherer sites up to 6,000 years old, and mining and ranching sites from the late 1800‘s. Sites both 

on and off the monument are recognized on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHR), including 

the Perry Mesa Archaeological District and the Harquahala Peak Smithsonian Observatory. The planning 

area contains no known significant sites for vertebrate or invertebrate fossils.

Recreation

The planning areas are on the northern and western fringes of the rapidly urbanizing Phoenix 

metropolitan area. Population growth from 1990 to 2000 exceeded 40 percent in the region. As the 

population grows, recreation demand grows as well. Studies indicate the rate of growth in recreation 

demand exceeds the rate of population growth. As the planning effort began, demand for motorized 
s-xv

recreation in the forms of four-wheel-drive vehicles (like jeeps and Humvees), ATVs, and motorcycles 

had been increasing rapidly. These recreation uses are expected to continue to increase disproportionate 

to population growth. As urban development gets closer and closer to public lands, unmanaged 

indiscriminate recreation use, such as unsafe practices of target shooting, creates conflict with natural 

resources and traditional public land users.

Visual Resources

Visual Resource Management (VRM) provides a basic tool for BLM to manage a major component of

open space. VRM inventory has discovered that, as natural landscapes are converted to rural and urban 

development, the public sensitivity to visual change on public lands increases. The public desires open 

and natural appearing landscapes on BLM-managed lands. Poorly designed activities that create large 

visual intrusions could diminish the quality of life that has attracted new residents to central Arizona.

Rangeland Management

There are 101 grazing allotments in the planning areas, where leases or permits allow the annual grazing 

of 83,060 animal unit months (AUMs), or approximately 11,690 animals (cattle, horses, and sheep). 

During seasons with extraordinary production of forage from annual grasses and forbs, additional AUMs 

are authorized for ephemeral use.

Mineral and Energy Resources

Mineral development of gold, copper, and other metals has been limited within the planning area for the 

last 15 to 20 years. Some areas of moderate mineral potential exist, but development beyond casual use 

has not occurred. The primary locatable mineral development has been by individuals or small operations 

conducting small-scale prospecting activities. No leases for oil or gas drilling have been issued in over 15 

years. As population growth and development continues, demand for building material also grows, which 

has increased the number of requests for sales of mineral materials such as sand, gravel, and decorative 

rock from public lands.

Energy resources include electric transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. Several major transmission 

lines and pipelines pass through the planning area to provide energy resources to Phoenix and other urban 

areas in Arizona and California. A major hub of transmission lines, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 

Station, is located just south of the planning area boundary along Interstate Highway 10 west of Phoenix. 

As urban areas continue to grow, it is expected that the BLM will receive more applications for new 

utility lines within utility corridors. 

Fire and Fuel Resources

The Sonoran Desert biome presents few opportunities for fire use. The ecosystem is sensitive to fire and 

suppression of fires is generally considered desirable. Vegetation communities at higher elevations, 

interior chaparral and desert grasslands, do have some fire use potential and prescribed burning is 

currently conducted in some of these areas. Population growth and urban expansion is increasing the 
s-xvi

extent of Wildland Urban Interface, (WUI) which presents increased challenge in the protection of private 

property and public safety. 

Wild Horses and Burros

The Lake Pleasant burro herd is managed in accordance with provisions in the Lake Pleasant Herd 

Management Plan. That plan established an appropriate management level (AML) of 208 burros within 

the Lake Pleasant Herd Management Area. Burros are gathered as needed to maintain the AML or to 

remove nuisance animals. The Harquahala Herd Area, though large in extent, has few burros as 

determined by aerial count. These animals spend much of their time on private agricultural lands near 

BLM-administered lands. Previous management plans have prescribed complete removal of these 

animals. A manageability analysis of the herd determined the small number and frequent use of private 

land renders this herd not manageable as a sustained herd over the long term.

Travel Management

Route inventory has been undertaken in both planning areas to identify existing travel routes. Inventory is 

complete in the national monument and 171 miles of motorized route have been detected and mapped. In 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, inventory is still underway. Based on the current inventory and 

other route sources, estimated motorized route mileage for the Bradshaw-Harquahala planning area is 

2,240 miles.

Wilderness Characteristics

Inventories of BLM-administered land to determine areas containing wilderness characteristics were 

conducted by BLM in 1980 and 2002. The Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 set aside 96,820 acres 

within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area in five wilderness areas. For this planning effort, the 

inventories of 1980 for areas not added to the National Wilderness Preservation System were reexamined 

to determine their current relevance. In addition, BLM received inventories conducted by private citizens 

and a proposal for protection of areas containing wilderness characteristics.

Social and Economic Conditions

Social and economic data suggest the region has seen a shift from rural communities relying on public 

lands for economic products, to urban communities with more diverse economies. In the urban areas, 

public lands are an increasingly important source of recreation opportunities, as well as a place of 

traditional uses, such as ranching and mining. Many rural communities within the planning area cling to 

their rural identities and continue to be dependent on public lands for economic stimulus. Many of these 

are shifting from mining and ranching towns to service providers for the recreation seeking urban 

dwellers. On a regional basis, the economic contribution from rural communities is only a small 

proportion of money generated. However, the economic contribution of public land use may be a large 

proportion of dollars flowing in many rural communities.
s-xvii

Environmental Justice

The planning area has several communities with minority populations exceeding county averages. In 

addition, several communities have above average numbers of households below the poverty level.
s-xviii

Summary of Proposed Decisions 

and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4 analyzes the consequences of proposed allocations and management actions for the five 

management Alternatives, on the natural and social environments of the planning areas. Table 2-8 

includes a summary comparison of impacts by Alternative. The Proposed RMP for each planning area 

consists of Alternative E, with some changes made in response to public and agency comments. Section 

2.1.1 provides a summary of changes from the Draft to the Proposed RMPs/EIS.

Special Designations

In the Agua Fria National Monument, the proposed plan eliminates two existing Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs) and provides for evaluations of the suitability of eight eligible 

tributaries of the Agua Fria River for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The current

ACECs in the Agua Fria NM would receive equal or higher levels of management and protection under 

the Monument Proclamation and management plan. In the Bradshaw-Harquahala area, the plan creates 

four new ACECs to protect important natural and cultural resources: Tule Creek ACEC (640 acres); 

Vulture Mountain ACEC (6,120 acres); Black Butte ACEC (8,260 acres); and Harquahala Mountains 

ACEC (74,950 acres). Limiting motorized use to designated routes and recreation allocations focused on 

managing rapidly increasing recreation demand will generally benefit resources within Special 

Designations.

Lands and Realty

The Bradshaw-Harquahala area includes 39,395 acres identified as potentially suitable for disposal, while 

the remaining lands in both planning areas would be retained in public ownership. The lands identified 

for potential disposal consist of scattered small parcels, including many in urban interface zones. Though 

scattered parcels would be made available for potential disposal through sales, leases or exchanges, ample 

lands for future development are available from sources other than disposal of public land.

Proposed utility and transportation corridors would meet increasing energy demands for urban expansion 

in central Arizona. The proposed plans maintain existing corridors, while creating a wider corridor in the 

Black Canyon area to accommodate new facilities while avoiding any new construction in the national 

monument. Existing state and federal highways could be maintained and widened. The proposed plan 

also establishes the Wickenburg Bypass and Canamex transportation corridors west of Phoenix. 

Soil Resources

Management proposed in all Alternatives provides measures to reduce soil erosion and maintain or 

enhance soil productivity.
s-xix

Air Quality

The proposed plans support actions to monitor air quality and mitigate impacts from vehicle travel and 

other sources of dust. Management practices generally would improve air quality throughout the planning 

areas. Although the BLM‘s contribution to air pollution in the region is negligible, proposals to limit 

motorized vehicles to designated routes and allocations, or special designations that limit expansion of 

route networks, will result in production of target pollutants at or reduced from current levels.

Water Resources

Management practices proposed in all Alternatives are designed to promote or improve water production 

and water quality. Most water related issues in Arizona are a result of rapid population growth, 

compounded by long periods of drought in the past few decades. Although the BLM‘s management 

actions have only limited effects, proposals to manage motorized vehicles, management actions designed 

to improve vegetation cover, and actions to protect or enhance riparian vegetation communities are 

expected to improve or maintain water production and quality.

Biological Resources

Management of riparian areas is a priority in all Alternatives. Various management alternatives are 

explored to balance the demands on riparian habitats with maintaining or enhancing their productivity. In 

all alternatives, limitations to motorized vehicles, implementation of Arizona Land Health Standards 

(ALHS), and management of recreation resources are designed to reduce disturbance to riparian areas and 

improve their functioning condition.

Management of desert tortoise habitat is a priority and most management actions are common to all 

Alternatives. Actions designed to maintain or improve conditions for desert tortoise should help their 

populations and avoid their listing as threatened or endangered.

Cultural Resources

Management of both planning areas places a priority on identification and protection of cultural 

resources. Selected sites or areas could be allocated to public use for interpretive development. 

Approximately 86% of the Agua Fria National Monument would be excluded from interpretive 

development. Sites could be developed for interpretive uses in six zones of the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

planning area. Proposed management actions provide protection for cultural resources and mitigation of 

impacts to sites developed for public use.

Paleontological Resources

There are no known significant resources in the planning areas. Management actions are designed to 

inventory and protect fossil sites if they are discovered in the course of normal management activities.
s-xx

Recreation

In the National Monument, the Proposed RMPs emphasizes resource protection and non-motorized 

activities, while accommodating recreational activities and facilities within the Front Country zone that 

are consistent with resource protection. The Front Country zone includes 11,900 acres that receive higher 

visitation levels due to proximity to major highways and roads. The Back Country zone of 57,650 acres 

would be the focus of undeveloped and self-directed visitor experiences in primitive landscape settings. 

The plan proposes to prohibit recreational target shooting in order to protect monument resources and 

public safety. Hunting would continue to be allowed in accordance with Arizona laws and regulations.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala area, the proposed plan offers a mix of recreational opportunities that 

attempts to meet the wide variety of recreation demands, while reducing conflict with other natural 

resources and traditional public land uses. The plan establishes management zones that encompass a 

range of landscapes and opportunities. It allocates 15 areas, totaling 678,835 acres, as Special Recreation 

Management Areas and Recreation Management Zones, each with specific Desired Future Conditions, 

benefits, and management actions. The remaining areas will be managed as Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas, where activities will be monitored but facilities would be limited. The plan 

emphasizes community partnerships to develop recreational opportunities in support of resource 

protection and public education. 

Visual Resources

Visual Resource Management (VRM) classifications range from Class I, which involves minimal change 

to the existing landscape, to Class IV which allows for more changes associated with development. The 

proposed plan allocates 59,000 acres to VRM Class II in the Agua Fria NM, including the Back Country 

zone and areas managed for wilderness characteristics. The Front Country zone is allocated to VRM 

Class III. The Bradshaw-Harquahala area includes 96,820 acres within five existing wilderness areas, 

which are allocated to VRM Class I. Other proposed allocations include 488,250 acres to VRM Class II, 

278,540 acres to VRM Class III, and 103,390 acres to VRM Class IV. These allocations minimize visual 

impacts while protecting scenic landscapes and meeting demands for public land resources.

Rangeland Management

The proposed plan limits livestock grazing in riparian areas to the winter season in the Agua Fria NM. In 

both planning areas, management changes will be implemented as needed to meet standards and bring 

riparian areas toward proper functioning condition. Changes in livestock grazing will primarily result 

from implementation of the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and the Guidelines for Grazing 

Management. These changes would result from individual allotment evaluations to determine if the 

standards are being met and adjustments designed to meet the standards. In certain areas, some reduction 

in AUMs might be required to achieve riparian management goals.

Mineral and Energy Resources

There are 171,940 acres proposed to be closed to mineral location; 171,690 acres closed to mineral 

leasing; and 172,780 acres closed to mineral materials sales. These closures incorporate the combined

area of 167,720 acres within the Agua Fria NM and five designated wilderness areas. Therefore, there 
s-xxi

would be little effect on existing mining operations. Sales of such mineral materials as sand and gravel, 

boulders and decorative rock could be limited by management for desert tortoise and varying allocations 

for primitive recreation use, but it is expected that in any case, regional demand will have to be met from 

non-BLM-managed lands.

Fire and Fuel Resources

The plan proposes to implement fuels management and suppression tactics that limit disturbance to the 

landscape. It would implement a range of appropriate vegetation treatments to maintain and restore 

habitats and to reduce and control wildfires. The plan supports actions and partnerships to protect 

communities in wildland-urban interface areas. Although the plan includes allocations for large 

undeveloped areas, few impacts to management of fire suppression or fire use are anticipated.

Wild Horses and Burros

Management within the two areas containing wild burros is not expected to change from current 

management. Burros in the Lake Pleasant Herd Management Area would continue at current numbers 

with occasional removal of animals to maintain herd numbers and remove nuisance animals. Burros in 

the Harquahala Herd Area would eventually be removed from public lands.

Travel Management

The proposed plan for the Agua Fria NM includes a network of designated travel routes, designed to 

protect monument values and resources while allowing for compatible uses and resource management 

activities. Of the 171 miles of existing inventoried routes, 52 miles would be closed to use by motorized 

and mechanized vehicles. There would be 25 miles limited to administrative use only, and 94 miles 

would remain open to travel. The plan proposes no new routes or scenic byway designations in the 

monument.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala area, all motorized and mechanized vehicles (with the exception of wheeled 

game carriers) would be limited to designated open routes. Travel is currently limited to inventoried 

routes, pending the development and implementation of travel management plans with public comment 

and review. Designated travel routes, clearly marked and reinforced by public education and law 

enforcement, will protect natural and cultural resources while allowing for public enjoyment of 

recreational opportunities, authorized land uses, and access to state and private property. 

Wilderness Characteristics

The proposed plan allocates 20,900 acres to be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics 

(outstanding opportunities for naturalness and solitude) in the Agua Fria NM. These areas include much 

of the Back Country zone on Perry Mesa and in the Agua Fria River Canyon and its tributary canyons. In 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala area, the plan allocates 13,490 acres to be managed for wilderness 

characteristics in the Black Canyon Management Unit and 53,789 acres to be managed as such in the 

Harquahala Management Unit within the Big Horn and Belmont mountain ranges. 
s-xxii

Social and Economic Conditions

Impacts to social and economic conditions from BLM management actions on a regional basis are 

expected to be small. Changes in mineral closures would not result in loss of current jobs or reduction in 

current economic development, but may result in opportunity costs for future mining possibilities.

Environmental Justice

Implementation of the proposed plans would not result in a disproportionate impact to any minority or 

low income group.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are discussed for Population Growth and Development, Recreation/Visitation, Air 

Quality, Soils, Water Resources, and Wild Horse and Burro Management. Generally, the cumulative 

affect of BLM management activities in addition to the rapid population growth and urban expansion of 

central Arizona indicates the contribution of public land management to change in the region is very 

small. It was determined that BLM management activities are not expected to result in a cumulatively 

significant impact to the environment.
Table of Contents

1

Table of Contents 

Agua Fria National Monument iv

TABLES 24

MAPS 26

Chapter One - Introduction 29

1.1 Introduction 29

1.2 Purpose and Need 29

1.3 Planning Area and Map Setting 30

1.4 Process 31

1.4.1 Collaboration and Cooperation 31

1.4.2 Community Collaboration and Community Vision 31

1.4.3 Community Vision Statements 32

1.4.3.1 Black Canyon City 32

1.4.3.2 Castle Hot Springs 33

1.4.3.3 Dewey Humboldt - Friends of the Agua Fria River Basin 33

1.4.3.4 New River 34

1.4.3.5 Wickenburg 34

1.4.4 Collaborating Agencies and Other Stakeholder Groups 35

1.4.5 Tribal Coordination and Consultation 35

1.4.6 Cooperating Agencies 36

1.5 Mission and Goals 36

1.5.1 Agua Fria National Monument 36

1.5.1.1 Purpose 37

1.5.1.2 Significance 37

1.5.1.3 Mission 38

1.5.1.4 Goals 38

1.5.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 38

1.5.2.1 Goals 39

1.6 Planning Issues 39

1.6.1 Introduction to the Scoping Process 39

1.6.2 Issues and Management Concerns 40

1.7 Laws, Regulations, Policies, Planning Criteria, and Existing Land 

Use Plans 40
Table of Contents

2

1.8 Relationship to Other Plans 41

Chapter 2 - Alternatives 43

2.1 Introduction 43

2.1.1 Summary of Changes from the Draft to the Proposed 

RMPs/Final EIS 46

2.2 Alternative A (Current Management) 47

2.2.1 Agua Fria National Monument 47

2.2.1.1 Special Designations 48

2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty 49

2.2.1.3 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 50

2.2.1.4 Biological Resources 50

2.2.1.5 Cultural Resources 51

2.2.1.6 Paleontological Resources 51

2.2.1.7 Recreation Resources 51

2.2.1.8 Visual Resources 52

2.2.1.9 Rangeland Management 52

2.2.1.10 Mineral Resource Management 52

2.2.1.11 Fire Management 53

2.2.1.12 Resource Conservation Areas and Multiple Resource 

Management Areas 53

2.2.1.13 Travel Management 53

2.2.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 53

2.2.2.1 Special Designations 54

2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty 54

2.2.2.3 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 56

2.2.2.4 Biological Resources 57

2.2.2.5 Cultural Resources 60

2.2.2.6 Recreation Resources 61

2.2.2.7 Visual Resources 64

2.2.2.8 Rangeland Management 65

2.2.2.9 Mineral Resource Management 65

2.2.2.10 Fire Management 67

2.2.2.11 Wild Horses and Burros 67

2.2.2.12 Resource Conservation Areas and Multiple Resource 

Management Areas 67

2.2.2.13 Travel Management 67

2.3 Alternative B 68
Table of Contents

3

2.3.1 Agua Fria National Monument 68

2.3.1.1 Special Designations 68

2.3.1.2 Lands and Realty 69

2.3.1.3 Biological Resources 69

2.3.1.4 Cultural Resources 70

2.3.1.5 Recreation Resources 70

2.3.1.6 Visual Resources 75

2.3.1.7 Rangeland Management 75

2.3.1.8 Travel Management 76

2.3.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 78

2.3.2.1 Management Applicable to the Entire Bradshaw-Harquahala 

under this Alternative 79

2.3.2.1.1 Lands and Realty 79

2.3.2.1.2 Rangeland Management 79

2.3.2.1.3 Mineral Resource Management 80

2.3.2.1.4 Travel Management 80

2.3.2.2 Management Units 81

2.3.2.2.1 Black Canyon Management Unit 81

2.3.2.2.1.1 Special Area Designations 82

2.3.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty 82

2.3.2.2.1.3 Biological Resources 82

2.3.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources 82

2.3.2.2.1.5 Recreation Resources 83

2.3.2.2.1.6 Visual Resources 84

2.3.2.2.1.7 Mineral Resource Management 84

2.3.2.2.1.8 Travel Management 84

2.3.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs Management Unit 84

2.3.2.2.2.1 Special Designations 85

2.3.2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty 85

2.3.2.2.2.3 Biological Resources 85

2.3.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources 86

2.3.2.2.2.5 Recreation Resources 86

2.3.2.2.2.6 Visual Resources 87

2.3.2.2.2.7 Mineral Resource Management 87

2.3.2.2.2.8 Travel Management 87

2.3.2.2.3 Hassayampa Management Unit 88

2.3.2.2.3.1 Special Designations 89

2.3.2.2.3.2 Lands and Realty 89
Table of Contents

4

2.3.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources 89

2.3.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resources 89

2.3.2.2.3.5 Recreation Resources 90

2.3.2.2.3.6 Visual Resources 93

2.3.2.2.3.7 Mineral Resource Management 94

2.3.2.2.3.8 Travel Management 94

2.3.2.2.4 Harquahala Management Unit 95

2.3.2.2.4.1 Special Designations 95

2.3.2.2.4.2 Lands and Realty 95

2.3.2.2.4.3 Biological Resources 95

2.3.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources 96

2.3.2.2.4.5 Recreation Resources 96

2.3.2.2.4.6 Wilderness Characteristics 97

2.3.2.2.4.7 Visual Resources 98

2.3.2.2.4.8 Mineral Resource Management 98

2.3.2.2.4.9 Travel Management 98

2.3.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management Unit 98

2.3.2.2.5.1 Special Designations 99

2.3.2.2.5.2 Lands and Realty 99

2.3.2.2.5.3 Biological Resources 99

2.3.2.2.5.4 Cultural Resources 99

2.3.2.2.5.5 Recreation Resources 100

2.3.2.2.5.6 Visual Resources 100

2.3.2.2.5.7 Travel Management 100

2.3.2.2.6 Resource Allocations Not Within a Management Unit 100

2.3.2.2.6.1 Cultural Resources 100

2.3.2.2.6.2 Recreation Resources 101

2.3.2.2.6.3 Visual Resources 102

2.3.2.2.6.4 Travel Management 102

2.4 Alternative C 103

2.4.1 Agua Fria National Monument 103

2.4.1.1 Special Designations 103

2.4.1.2 Lands and Realty 105

2.4.1.2.1 Utility and Transportation Corridors 105

2.4.1.3 Biological Resources 105

2.4.1.4 Cultural Resources 106

2.4.1.5 Recreation Resources 106

2.4.1.6 Visual Resources 110
Table of Contents

5

2.4.1.7 Rangeland Management 110

2.4.1.8 Travel Management 110

2.4.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 113

2.4.2.1 Management Applicable to the Entire Bradshaw-Harquahala 

under this Alternative 113

2.4.2.1.1 Lands and Realty 113

2.4.2.1.2 Rangeland Management 114

2.4.2.1.3 Mineral Resource Management 114

2.4.2.1.4 Travel Management 115

2.4.2.2 Management Units 116

2.4.2.2.1 Black Canyon Management Unit 116

2.4.2.2.1.1 Special Designations 116

2.4.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty 117

2.4.2.2.1.3 Biological Resources 117

2.4.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources 117

2.4.2.2.1.5 Recreation Resources 118

2.4.2.2.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics 119

2.4.2.2.1.7 Visual Resources 119

2.4.2.2.1.8 Mineral Resource Management 120

2.4.2.2.1.9 Travel Management 120

2.4.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs Management Unit 120

2.4.2.2.2.1 Special Designations 120

2.4.2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty 122

2.4.2.2.2.3 Biological Resources 122

2.4.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources 122

2.4.2.2.2.5 Recreation Resources 123

2.4.2.2.2.6 Wilderness Characteristics 123

2.4.2.2.2.7 Visual Resources 124

2.4.2.2.2.8 Mineral Resource Management 124

2.4.2.2.2.9 Travel Management 124

2.4.2.2.3 Hassayampa Management Unit 125

2.4.2.2.3.1 Special Designations 125

2.4.2.2.3.2 Lands and Realty 126

2.4.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources 127

2.4.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resources 127

2.4.2.2.3.5 Recreation Resources 128

2.4.2.2.3.6 Wilderness Characteristics 131

2.4.2.2.3.7 Visual Resources 131
Table of Contents

6

2.4.2.2.3.8 Mineral Resource Management 132

2.4.2.2.3.9 Travel Management 132

2.4.2.2.4 Harquahala Management Unit 133

2.4.2.2.4.1 Special Designations 133

2.4.2.2.4.2 Lands and Realty 135

2.4.2.2.4.3 Biological Resources 135

2.4.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources 136

2.4.2.2.4.5 Recreation Resources 137

2.4.2.2.4.6 Wilderness Characteristics 137

2.4.2.2.4.7 Visual Resources 138

2.4.2.2.4.8 Mineral Resource Management 138

2.4.2.2.4.9 Travel Management 138

2.4.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management Unit 139

2.4.2.2.5.1 Special Designations 139

2.4.2.2.5.2 Lands and Realty 139

2.4.2.2.5.3 Biological Resources 139

2.4.2.2.5.4 Cultural Resources 140

2.4.2.2.5.5 Recreation Resources 140

2.4.2.2.5.6 Visual Resources 140

2.4.2.2.5.7 Mineral Resource Management 140

2.4.2.2.5.8 Travel Management 140

2.4.2.2.6 Upper Agua Fria River Basin Management Unit 140

2.4.2.2.6.1 Special Designations 140

2.4.2.2.6.2 Lands and Realty 141

2.4.2.2.6.3 Biological Resources 141

2.4.2.2.6.4 Cultural Resources 141

2.4.2.2.6.5 Recreation Resources 141

2.4.2.2.6.6 Visual Resources 142

2.4.2.2.6.7 Mineral Resource Management 142

2.4.2.2.6.8 Travel Management 142

2.4.2.2.7 Resource Allocations Not Within a Management Unit 142

2.4.2.2.7.1 Biological Resources 142

2.4.2.2.7.2 Recreation Resources 143

2.4.2.2.7.3 Travel Management 143

2.5 Alternative D 143

2.5.1 Agua Fria National Monument 143

2.5.1.1 Special Designations 144

2.5.1.2 Lands and Realty 144
Table of Contents

7

2.5.1.3 Biological Resources 144

2.5.1.4 Cultural Resources 145

2.5.1.5 Recreation Resources 146

2.5.1.6 Visual Resources 148

2.5.1.7 Rangeland Management 148

2.5.1.8 Travel Management 148

2.5.1.9 Wilderness Characteristics 150

2.5.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 150

2.5.2.1 Management Applicable to the Entire Bradshaw-Harquahala 

under this Alternative 151

2.5.2.1.1 Lands and Realty 151

2.5.2.1.2 Rangeland Management 151

2.5.2.1.3 Mineral Resources Management 151

2.5.2.1.4 Travel Management 152

2.5.2.2 Management Units 153

2.5.2.2.1 Black Canyon Management Unit 153

2.5.2.2.1.1 Special Designations 153

2.5.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty 154

2.5.2.2.1.3 Biological Resources 154

2.5.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources 155

2.5.2.2.1.5 Recreation Resources 155

2.5.2.2.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics 156

2.5.2.2.1.7 Visual Resources 157

2.5.2.2.1.8 Mineral Resource Management 157

2.5.2.2.1.9 Travel Management 157

2.5.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs Management Unit 158

2.5.2.2.2.1 Special Designations 158

2.5.2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty 160

2.5.2.2.2.3 Biological Resources 160

2.5.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources 161

2.5.2.2.2.5 Recreation Resources 161

2.5.2.2.2.6 Visual Resources 163

2.5.2.2.2.7 Mineral Resource Management 163

2.5.2.2.2.8 Travel Management 163

2.5.2.2.3 Hassayampa Management Unit 164

2.5.2.2.3.1 Special Designations 164

2.5.2.2.3.2 Lands and Realty 165

2.5.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources 165
Table of Contents

8

2.5.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resources 165

2.5.2.2.3.5 Recreation Resources 165

2.5.2.2.3.6 Wilderness Characteristics 167

2.5.2.2.3.7 Visual Resources 167

2.5.2.2.3.8 Mineral Resource Management 168

2.5.2.2.3.9 Travel Management 168

2.5.2.2.4 Harquahala Management Unit 168

2.5.2.2.4.1 Special Designations 169

2.5.2.2.4.2 Lands and Realty 172

2.5.2.2.4.3 Biological Resources 172

2.5.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources 172

2.5.2.2.4.5 Recreation Resources 173

2.5.2.2.4.6 Wilderness Characteristics 173

2.5.2.2.4.7 Visual Resources 174

2.5.2.2.4.8 Mineral Resource Management 174

2.5.2.2.4.9 Travel Management 174

2.5.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management Unit 175

2.5.2.2.5.1 Special Designations 175

2.5.2.2.5.2 Lands and Realty 175

2.5.2.2.5.3 Biological Resources 175

2.5.2.2.5.4 Cultural Resource 175

2.5.2.2.5.5 Recreation Resources 175

2.5.2.2.5.6 Visual Resources 175

2.5.2.2.5.7 Mineral Resource Management 175

2.5.2.2.5.8 Travel Management 176

2.5.2.2.6 Peeples Valley Management Unit 176

2.5.2.2.6.1 Special Designations 176

2.5.2.2.6.2 Lands and Realty 176

2.5.2.2.6.3 Biological Resources 176

2.5.2.2.6.4 Cultural Resources 177

2.5.2.2.6.5 Recreation Resources 177

2.5.2.2.6.6 Visual Resources 177

2.5.2.2.6.7 Mineral Resource Management 177

2.5.2.2.6.8 Travel Management 178

2.5.2.2.7 Upper Agua Fria River Basin Management Unit 178

2.5.2.2.7.1 Special Designations 178

2.5.2.2.7.2 Lands and Realty 179

2.5.2.2.7.3 Biological Resources 179
Table of Contents

9

2.5.2.2.7.4 Cultural Resources 179

2.5.2.2.7.5 Recreation Resources 179

2.5.2.2.7.6 Visual Resources 180

2.5.2.2.7.7 Mineral Resource Management 180

2.5.2.2.7.8 Travel Management 180

2.6 Alternative E (Proposed Action) 181

2.6.1 Agua Fria National Monument 181

2.6.1.1 Special Designations 181

2.6.1.2 Lands and Realty 184

2.6.1.3 Biological Resources 184

2.6.1.4 Cultural Resources 185

2.6.1.5 Recreation Resources 185

2.6.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics 191

2.6.1.7 Visual Resources 191

2.6.1.8 Rangeland Management 192

2.6.1.9 Travel Management 192

2.6.2.1 Management Applicable to the Entire Bradshaw-Harquahala 

under this Alternative 195

2.6.2.1.1 Lands and Realty 196

2.6.2.1.2 Rangeland Management 196

2.6.2.1.3 Mineral Resources Management 197

2.6.2.1.4 Travel Management 197

2.6.2.1.5 Recreation Resources 198

2.6.2.2 Management Units 198

2.6.2.2.1 Black Canyon Management Unit 198

2.6.2.2.1.1 Special Designations 199

2.6.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty 199

2.6.2.2.1.3 Biological Resources 200

2.6.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources 200

2.6.2.2.1.5 Recreation Resources 201

2.6.2.2.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics 205

2.6.2.2.1.7 Visual Resources 205

2.6.2.2.1.8 Mineral Resource Management 205

2.6.2.2.1.9 Travel Management 206

2.6.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs Management Unit 206

2.6.2.2.2.1 Special Designations 206

2.6.2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty 207

2.6.2.2.2.3 Biological Resources 208
Table of Contents

10

2.6.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources 208

2.6.2.2.2.5 Recreation Resources 209

2.6.2.2.2.6 Wilderness Characteristics 213

2.6.2.2.2.7 Visual Resources 213

2.6.2.2.2.8 Mineral Resource Management 213

2.6.2.2.2.9 Travel Management 213

2.6.2.2.3 Hassayampa Management Unit 214

2.6.2.2.3.1 Special Designations 214

2.6.2.2.3.2 Lands and Realty 215

2.6.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources 215

2.6.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resources 215

2.6.2.2.3.5 Recreation Resources 216

2.6.2.2.3.6 Wilderness Characteristics 222

2.6.2.2.3.7 Visual Resources 223

2.6.2.2.3.8 Mineral Resources Management 223

2.6.2.2.3.9 Travel Management 223

2.6.2.2.4 Harquahala Management Unit 225

2.6.2.2.4.1 Special Designations 225

2.6.2.2.4.2 Lands and Realty 228

2.6.2.2.4.3 Biological Resources 228

2.6.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources 229

2.6.2.2.4.5 Recreation Resources 229

2.6.2.2.4.6 Wilderness Characteristics 229

2.6.2.2.4.7 Visual Resources 230

2.6.2.2.4.8 Mineral Resource Management 230

2.6.2.2.4.9 Travel Management 230

2.6.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management Unit 231

2.6.2.2.6 Upper Agua Fria River Basin Management Unit 232

2.6.2.2.6.1 Special Area Designations 232

2.6.2.2.6.2 Lands and Realty 232

2.6.2.2.6.3 Biological Resources 233

2.6.2.2.6.4 Cultural Resources 233

2.6.2.2.6.5 Recreation Resources 234

2.6.2.2.6.6 Visual Resources 235

2.6.2.2.6.7 Mineral Resource Management 235

2.6.2.2.6.8 Travel Management 235

2.7 Management Common to All Action Alternatives 236
Table of Contents

11

2.7.1 Management Common to Both Planning Areas 236

2.7.1.1 Land Health Standards 236

2.7.1.2 Lands and Realty 238

2.7.1.3 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 241

2.7.1.4 Biological Resources 241

2.7.1.5 Cultural Resources 249

2.7.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics 251

2.7.1.7 Paleontological Resources 253

2.7.1.8 Visual Resources 254

2.7.1.9 Rangeland Management 254

2.7.1.10 Fire Management 257

2.7.1.11 Recreation 260

2.7.1.12 Travel Management 263

2.7.2 Management Common to Agua Fria National Monument 264

2.7.2.1 Management Units 264

2.7.2.2 Special Area Designations 264

2.7.2.3 Lands and Realty 264

2.7.2.4 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 265

2.7.2.5 Biological Resources 265

2.7.2.6 Cultural Resources 265

2.7.2.7 Recreation Resources 268

2.7.2.8 Visual Resources 272

2.7.2.9 Mineral Resource Management 272

2.7.2.10 Travel Management 273

2.7.3 Management Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area 274

2.7.3.1 Special Area Designations 274

2.7.3.2 Lands and Realty 275

2.7.3.3 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 276

2.7.3.4 Biological Resources 276

2.7.3.5 Cultural Resources 277

2.7.3.6 Recreation Resources 280

2.7.3.7 Travel Management 289

2.7.3.8 Visual Resource Management 295

2.7.3.9 Rangeland Management 295

2.7.3.10 Mineral Resource Management 295

2.7.3.11 Wild Burro Management 296

2.8 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail 296
Table of Contents

12

2.9 Typical Management Actions and Standard Operating Procedures

297

2.9.1 Typical Management Actions 297

2.9.1.1 Vegetation Treatment 297

2.9.2 Appropriate Management Response 303

2.9.2.1 Fire Management 303

2.9.3 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 303

2.10 Implementation and Monitoring 313

2.10.1 Implementation 313

2.10.2 Monitoring 314

2.11 Administrative Actions 315

2.12 Requirements for Further Environmental Analysis 315

2.13 Interrelationships 316

2.14 Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 319

4.13.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 361

4.14.1 From Management of Special Area Designations 361

4.14.2 From Lands and Realty Management 362

4.14.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 363

4.14.4 From Biological Resource Management 363

4.14.5 From Cultural Resource Management 364

4.14.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 365

4.14.7 From Recreation Management 365

4.14.8 From Visual Resource Management 367

4.14.9 From Rangeland Management 368

4.14.10 From Minerals Management 368

4.14.11 From Fire Management 369

4.14.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 369

4.14.13 From Management of Travel Management 369

4.14.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 370

4.15.1 From Management of Special Area Designations 371

4.15.2 From Lands and Realty Management 371

4.15.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 372

4.15.4 From Biological Resource Management 372

4.15.13 From Management of Travel Management 376

4.15.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 376

4.16.1 From Management of Special Area Designations 377

4.16.13 From Management of Travel Management 382
Table of Contents

13

4.16.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 382

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment 413

3.1 Introduction 413

3.2 Special Area Designations 413

3.2.1 Introduction 413

3.2.2 Wilderness Areas 413

3.2.3 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 413

3.2.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers 414

3.2.5 Back Country Byways 414

3.3 Lands and Realty 414

3.3.1 Land Tenure 414

3.3.2 Agua Fria National Monument (AFNM) 415

3.3.3 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 416

3.3.4 Utility and Communications Corridors 416

3.3.5 Transportation Corridors 417

3.4 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 418

3.4.1 Soil Resources 418

3.4.2 Air Resources 418

3.4.2.1 Particulate Matter 419

3.4.2.2 Ozone 420

3.4.3 Water Resources 421

3.5.1 Vegetation 422

3.5.2 Riparian Resources 423

3.5.3 Terrestrial Games Species 423

3.5.4 Aquatic Game Species 424

3.5.5 Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate 

Species 424

3.5.5.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 424

3.5.5.2 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 

extimus) 425

3.5.5.3 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis) 425

3.5.5.4 Desert Pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) 425

3.5.5.5 Gila Chub (Gila intermedia) 426

3.5.5.6 Gila Topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis) 426

3.5.5.7 Spikedace (Meda fulgida) 426
Table of Contents

14

3.5.5.8 Lesser Long-nosed Bat (Leptonycteris curasoae 

yerbabuenae) 427

3.5.5.9 California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis 

californicus) 427

3.5.5.10 Yuma Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) 427

3.5.5.11 Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) 427

3.5.6 Other Special Status Species 427

3.5.6.1 Sonoran Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) 428

3.5.7 Invasive Species 429

3.6 Cultural Resources 429

3.7 Paleontological Resources 433

3.8 Recreation 434

3.9 Wilderness Characteristics 435

3.10 Visual Resources 437

3.11 Rangeland Management 438

3.12 Mineral Resources 439

3.13 Fire Management 442

3.14 Wild Burros 443

3.15 Social and Economic Conditions 444

3.15.1 Population and Household Characteristics 444

3.15.2 Employment and Earnings 445

3.15.3 Unemployment 446

3.15.4 Property Valuation 446

3.15.5 Recreation and Tourism 447

3.15.6 Ranching-Agriculture 448

3.16 Environmental Justice 449

3.16.1 Minority Populations within the Planning Areas 449

3.16.2 Low-Income Populations within the Planning Areas 450

3.17 Health and Safety 451

3.17.1 Abandoned Mine Lands 451

3.17.2 Hazardous Materials 451

3.18 Travel Management 452

Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences 456
Table of Contents

15

4.1 Introduction 456

4.3 Types of Effects to be Addressed 457

4.4 Incomplete or Unavailable Information 457

4.5 Critical Elements that will not be Addressed 457

4.6 Impacts on Special Designations 458

4.6.1 From Special Designations 458

4.6.2 From Lands and Realty Management 460

4.6.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 461

4.6.4 From Biological Resource Management 461

4.6.5 From Cultural Resource Management 462

4.6.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 463

4.6.7 From Recreation Management 463

4.6.8 From Visual Resource Management 464

4.6.9 From Rangeland Management 465

4.6.10 From Minerals Management 466

4.6.11 From Fire Management 467

4.6.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 468

4.6.13 From Management of Travel Management 468

4.6.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 469

4.7 Impacts on Lands and Realty Management 469

4.7.1 From Special Designations 471

4.7.2 From Lands and Realty Management 472

4.7.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 474

4.7.4 From Biological Resource Management 474

4.7.5 From Cultural Resource Management 474

4.7.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 474

4.7.7 From Recreation Management 474

4.7.8 From Visual Resource Management 475

4.7.9 From Rangeland Management 475

4.7.11 From Fire Management 475

4.7.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 475

4.7.13 From Management of Travel Management 475

4.7.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 475

4.8 Impacts on Soil Resources 476

4.8.1 From Special Designations 476

4.8.2 From Lands and Realty Management 477
Table of Contents

16

4.8.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 477

4.8.4 From Biological Resource Management 478

4.8.5 From Cultural Resource Management 478

4.8.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 478

4.8.7 From Recreation Management 478

4.8.7.1 From Special Recreation Permit Program 481

4.8.8 From Visual Resource Management 483

4.8.9 From Rangeland Management 483

4.8.10 From Minerals Management 484

4.8.11 From Fire Management 485

4.8.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 486

4.8.13 From Management of Travel Management 486

4.8.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 487

4.9 Impacts on Air Quality 488

4.9.1 From Special Designations 490

4.9.2 From Lands and Realty Management 491

4.9.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 492

4.9.4 From Biological Resource Management 493

4.9.5 From Cultural Resource Management 494

4.9.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 494

4.9.7 From Recreation Management 494

4.9.8 From Visual Resource Management 497

4.9.9 From Rangeland Management 497

4.9.10 From Minerals Management 498

4.9.11 From Fire Management 499

4.9.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 500

4.9.13 From Management of Travel Management 500

4.9.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 501

4.10 Impacts on Water Resources 501

4.10.1 From Special Designations 502

4.10.2 From Lands and Realty Management 504

4.10.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 505

4.10.4 From Biological Resource Management 505

4.10.5 From Cultural Resource Management 506

4.10.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 506

4.10.7 From Recreation Management 506

4.10.8 From Visual Resource Management 508

4.10.9 From Rangeland Management 508
Table of Contents

17

4.10.10 From Minerals Management 509

4.10.11 From Fire Management 510

4.10.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 511

4.10.13 From Management of Travel Management 511

4.10.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 512

4.11 Impacts on Biological Resources 512

4.11.1 From Special Designations 512

4.11.2 From Lands and Realty Management 517

4.11.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 519

4.11.4 From Biological Resource Management 519

4.11.5 From Cultural Resource Management 524

4.11.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 525

4.11.7 From Recreation Management 525

4.11.8 From Visual Resource Management 528

4.11.9 From Rangeland Management 529

4.11.10 From Minerals Management 531

4.11.11 From Fire Management 533

4.11.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 534

4.11.13 From Management of Travel Management 534

4.11.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 536

4.12 Impacts on Cultural Resources 537

4.12.1 From Special Designations 537

4.12.2 From Lands and Realty Management 538

4.12.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 540

4.12.4 From Biological Resource Management 540

4.12.5 From Cultural Resource Management 541

4.12.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 546

4.12.7 From Recreation Management 546

4.12.8 From Visual Resource Management 549

4.12.9 From Rangeland Management 550

4.12.10 From Minerals Management 551

4.12.11 From Fire Management 552

4.12.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 553

4.12.13 From Management of Travel Management 553

4.12.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 555

4.13 Impacts on Paleontological Resources 555

4.13.1 From Special Designations 556
Table of Contents

18

4.13.2 From Lands and Realty Management 556

4.13.4 From Biological Resource Management 557

4.13.5 From Cultural Resource Management 557

4.13.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 557

4.13.7 From Recreation Management 557

4.13.8 From Visual Resource Management 558

4.13.9 From Rangeland Management 558

4.13.10 From Minerals Management 559

4.13.11 From Fire Management 559

4.13.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 559

4.13.13 From Management of Travel Management 559

4.13.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 559

4.14 Impacts on Recreation 560

4.14.1 From Special Designations 560

4.14.2 From Lands and Realty Management 562

4.14.3 From Management of Soil, Water, and Air Resources 563

4.14.4 From Biological Resource Management 564

4.14.5 From Cultural Resource Management 566

4.14.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 568

4.14.7 From Recreation Management 568

4.14.8 From Visual Resource Management 576

4.14.9 From Rangeland Management 577

4.14.10 From Minerals Management 578

4.14.11 From Fire Management 579

4.14.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 580

4.14.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 582

4.15 Impacts on Visual Resource Management 583

4.15.1 From Special Designations 585

4.15.2 From Lands and Realty Management 587

4.15.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 589

4.15.4 From Biological Resource Management 589

4.15.5 From Cultural Resource Management 590

4.15.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 591

4.15.7 From Recreation Management 591

4.15.8 From Visual Resource Management 593

4.15.9 From Rangeland Management 595

4.15.10 From Minerals Management 595

4.15.11 From Fire Management 597
Table of Contents

19

4.15.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 597

4.15.13 From Management of Travel Management 597

4.15.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 598

4.16 Impacts on Rangeland Management 599

4.16.1 From Special Designations 599

4.16.2 From Lands and Realty Management 600

4.16.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 602

4.16.4 From Biological Resource Management 602

4.16.5 From Cultural Resource Management 603

4.16.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 603

4.16.7 From Recreation Management 603

4.16.8 From Visual Resource Management 605

4.16.9 From Rangeland Management 605

4.16.10 From Minerals Management 606

4.16.11 From Fire Management 606

4.16.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 607

4.16.13 From Management of Travel Management 607

4.16.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 608

4.17 Impacts on Minerals and Energy Resources 608

4.17.1 From Special Designations 611

4.17.2 From Lands and Realty Management 613

4.17.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 614

4.17.4 From Biological Resource Management 614

4.17.5 From Cultural Resource Management 615

4.17.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 615

4.17.7 From Recreation Management 615

4.17.8 From Visual Resource Management 615

4.17.9 From Rangeland Management 616

4.17.10 From Minerals Management 616

4.17.11 From Fire Management 616

4.17.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 616

4.17.13 From Land Health Standards 616

4.17.14 From Management of Travel Management 616

4.17.15 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 617

4.18 Impacts on Fire and Fuel Resources 617

4.18.1 From Special Designations 617

4.18.2 From Lands and Realty Management 618
Table of Contents

20

4.18.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 619

4.18.4 From Biological Resource Management 619

4.18.5 From Cultural Resource Management 620

4.18.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 621

4.18.7 From Recreation Management 621

4.18.8 From Visual Resource Management 622

4.18.9 From Rangeland Management 622

4.18.10 From Minerals Management 623

4.18.11 From Fire Management 623

4.18.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 624

4.18.13 From Management of Travel Management 624

4.18.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 625

4.19 Impacts on Wild Horses and Burros 625

4.19.1 From Special Designations 625

4.19.2 From Lands and Realty Management 626

4.19.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 626

4.19.4 From Biological Resource Management 626

4.19.5 From Cultural Resource Management 626

4.19.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 627

4.19.7 From Recreation Management 627

4.19.8 From Visual Resource Management 627

4.19.9 From Rangeland Management 627

4.19.10 From Minerals Management 628

4.19.11 From Fire Management 628

4.19.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 628

4.19.13 From Management of Travel Management 628

4.19.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 629

4.20 Impacts on Travel Management 629

4.20.1 From Special Designations 630

4.20.2 From Lands and Realty Management 631

4.20.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 632

4.20.4 From Biological Resource Management 633

4.20.5 From Cultural Resource Management 634

4.20.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 634

4.20.7 From Recreation Resource Management 634

4.20.8 From Visual Resource Management 637

4.20.9 From Rangeland Management 637

4.20.10 From Minerals Management 638
Table of Contents

21

4.20.11 From Fire Management 639

4.20.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 639

4.20.13 From Management of Travel Management 639

4.20.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 641

4.21 Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics 642

4.21.1 From Special Designations 642

4.21.2 From Lands and Realty Management 643

4.21.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 644

4.21.4 From Biological Resource Management 644

4.21.5 From Cultural Resource Management 644

4.21.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 645

4.21.7 From Recreation Resource Management 645

4.21.8 From Visual Resource Management 646

4.21.9 From Rangeland Management 646

4.21.10 From Minerals Management 647

4.21.11 From Fire Management 647

4.21.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 647

4.21.13 From Management of Travel Management 648

4.21.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 648

4.22 Impacts on Social and Economic Conditions 650

4.22.1 Planning Area Growth and Development 650

4.23 Environmental Justice 663

4.24 Cumulative Impacts 664

4.25 Mitigation 669

4.25.1 Mitigation for Effects of Routes 669

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 672

5.1 COMMUNICATION METHODS 672

5.2 Community Outreach 673

5.2.1 Community Based Partnership workshops 673

5.2.2 Scoping Meetings 673

5.2.3 Alternative Development Workshops 673

5.2.4 Public Comment Meetings 673

5.2.5 E-planning Workshops Meetings 674

5.2.6 Consultation and Coordination 674

5.3 PUBLIC COMMENTS 674
Table of Contents

22

5.3.1 Summary of Comments Received 674

5.3.2 Context of Comments Received 675

5.3.3 Comment Analysis Process 676

5.3.4 Agencies, Organizations, Groups, and Individuals who 

provided Comments 677

5.4 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 686

5.4.1 ALTERNATIVES & PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 686

5.4.2 OBJECTS OF AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT 690

5.4.3 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 696

5.4.4 LANDS AND REALTY 704

5.4.5 SOIL, AIR, AND WATER RESOURCES 726

5.4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 732

5.4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 746

5.4.8 RECREATION RESOURCES 756

5.4.9 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 780

5.4.10 VISUAL RESOURCES 799

5.4.11 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT 803

5.4.12 MINERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 816

5.4.13 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 822

5.4.14 WILD HORSES AND BURROS 857

5.4.15 DOCUMENT COMPLEXITY AND REVIEW 857

5.4.16 EDITORIAL ERRORS & CLARIFICATION 860

5.4.17 ENFORCEMENT & FUNDING 867

5.4.18 IMPLEMENTATION, MITIGATION, AND MONITORING 868

Public Concern (IP-1): 868

5.4.19 INVENTORY OF RESOURCES 872

5.4.21 RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND COLLABORATION 874

5.4.22 E-PLANNING 878

List of Preparers 882

List of Recipients 887

Abbreviations and Acronyms 890

References 894

Glossary 899

Additional Tables 936
Table of Contents

23

Appendix A 951

Agua Fria National Monument Proclamation 951

Appendix B- Scoping Results 954

Appendix C – Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policies and Planning Criteria 965

Appendix D - Route Evaluation/Designation Decision Tree Process 976

Appendix E: Cultural Resources Use Categories 981

Appendix F: Special Cultural Resource Management Areas 984

Appendix G – Harquahala Herd Area Manageability Analysis 986

Appendix I: Consideration of Wilderness Characteristics 991

Appendix J - Vegetation Communities Related to Fire 1000

Appendix K – Special Stipulations for Special Recreation Permits 1008

Appendix L – Fire Management Units 1014

Appendix M – Population Growth Model 1037

Appendix N – Bradshaw-Harquahala Route Model 1039

Appendix O - Grazing Allotment Information 1042

Appendix P - Conservation Measures for Fire, Fuel, and Air Quality 1045

Appendix Q-1. Riparian Functional Condition – Agua Fria National Monument 1054

Appendix Q-2. Riparian Functional Condition – Bradshaw-Harquahala 1056

Appendix S Benefits-Based Recreation 1067

Appendix T - Off-Highway Vehicle Mitigation Examples 1186

Appendix U – Special Status Species 1192

Appendix V – Additional Information for the Black Canyon Utility Corridor 1195
Tables

24

TABLES

Table E-1. Comparison of Key Alternative Components 

Table 1-1. Identified Scoping Issues Addressed in the 

Formulation of Alternatives 

 

Table 1-2. Identified Management Concerns Addressed in the 

Formulation of Alternatives 

 

Table 2-1. Use Corridors within Lower Gila North Planning Area 

Table 2-2. Visual Resource Management Classes by Alternative

(BLM acres) 

 

Table 2-3. Alternative B: Cultural Resource Public Use Areas 

Table 2-4. Alternative C: Cultural Resource Public Use Areas 

Table 2-5. Alternative D: Cultural Resource Public Use Area 

Table 2-6. Paleontological Sensitivity Classes 

Table 2-7. Desired Future Conditions and Land Use Allocations 

for Vegetation Communities in Arizona 

 

Table 2-8. Summary Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

Table 3-1. Special Designations: Suitable Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

 

Table 3-2. Details of Land Ownership within the Planning Area 

Table 3-3. Existing Utility Corridors 

Table 3-4. Ages of Known Cultural Sites in the Planning Areas 

Table 3-5. Population and Household Characteristics 

Table 3-6. Comparison of Total Housing Units and Average 

Value of Homes 

 

Table 3-7. Employment by Sector (by Percent %) 

Table 3-8. Earnings by Sector (by Percent %) 

Table 3-9. Unemployment 

Table 3-10. 2002 Primary Property Tax Levies 

Table 3-11. Payments in Lieu of Taxes 

Table 3-12. Ethnic Population Characteristics 

Table 3-13. Persons below Poverty Level 

Table 3-14. Summary of Hazardous Materials Sites on BLMmanaged lands within the Planning Area  

Table 4-1. Estimated Emissions from Countywide OHV Use 

Table 4-2. Population Growth and Emissions Generated by 

Land Disposal Parcels Inside Air Quality

Nonattainment Areas 

 

Table 4-3. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

Acreages 

 

Table 4-4. Acres Closed to Mining by Alternative 

Table 4-5. Desert Tortoise Habitat Comparison (acres of BLM) 
Tables

25

 

 

Table 4-6. VRM Classes by Alternative (BLM acres) 

 

 

Table 4-7. Acres of inventoried Mineral Potential that would be 

Closed by Alternative 

 

Table 4-8. Route Distribution (in miles) 

Table 4-9. Hispanic Populations within Human Resource Units 
26

MAPS

Map 1-1 Resource Management Plan Areas (Res Management Plan Areas)

Map 1-2 Outlying Parcels

Map 2-1 Alt A Split Estate Minerals

Map 2-2 Alt A Agua Fria National Monument Special Area Designations and 

National Register District (Alt A AFNM Special Area Des-NRD)

Map 2-3 Alt A AFNM Utility-Transportation Corridors 

Map 2-4 Alt A RCAs and MRMAs

Map 2-5 Alt A Multiple Resources

Map 2-6 Alt A Disposal

Map 2-7 Alt A Utility-Transportation Corridors (Alt A Utility-Trans Corridor)

Map 2-8 Desert Night Lizard, Arizona

Map 2-9 Alt A VRM

Map 2-10 Alt A Minerals

Map 2-11 Alt A OHV

Map 2-12 Alt B AFNM Special Designations (Alt B Special Area Des)

Map 2-13 Alt B AFNM Utility-Transportation Corridors 

Map 2-14 Alt B AFNM Multiple Resources

Map 2-15 Alt B VRM

Map 2-16 Alt B-C-D-E OHV

Map 2-17 Alt B AFNM Route Network

Map 2-18 Alt B Management Units

Map 2-19 Alt B Disposal

Map 2-20 Alt B Utility-Transportation Corridors (Alt B Utility-Trans Corridor)

Map 2-21 Alt B Grazing Resources

Map 2-22 Alt B Closed Locatable Minerals (Alt B Closed Locatable Min)

Map 2-23 Alt B Closed Leasable Minerals (Alt B Closed Leasable Min)

Map 2-24 Alt B Closed Saleable Minerals (Alt B Closed Saleable Min)

Map 2-25 Alt B Black Canyon MU

Map 2-26 Alt B Castle Hot Springs MU

Map 2-27 Alt B Hassayampa MU

Map 2-28 Alt B Harquahala MU

Map 2-29 Alt B Harcuvar MU 

Map 2-30 Alt B Allocation Outside MU

Map 2-31 Alt B Wilderness Characteristics (Alt B Wilderness Characteristics) 

Map 2-32 Yarnell Hang Gliding RMZ

Map 2-33 Alt C AFNM Special Area Designation (Alt C AFNM Special Area Des)

Map 2-34 Alt C AFNM Biological Resources (Alt C AFNM Biological Res)

Map 2-35 Alt C AFNM Cultural-Recreation Resources (Alt C AFNM Cult-Rec 

Resource)

Map 2-36 Alt C VRM
27

Map 2-37 Alt C AFNM Grazing Resource

Map 2-38 Alt C AFNM Route Network

Map 2-39 Alt C Management Units

Map 2-40 Alt C Disposal

Map 2-41 Alt C Utility-Transportation Corridors (Alt C Utility-Trans Corridor)

Map 2-42 Alt C Grazing Resources

Map 2-43 Alt C Closed Locatable Minerals (Alt C Closed Locatable Min)

Map 2-44 Alt C Closed Leasable Minerals (Alt C Closed Leasable Min)

Map 2-45 Alt C Closed Saleable Minerals (Alt C Closed Saleable Min)

Map 2-46 Alt C Special Area Designation (Alt C Special Area Des)

Map 2-47 Alt C-D Black Canyon MU

Map 2-48 Alt C Castle Hot Springs MU

Map 2-49 Alt C Hassayampa MU

Map 2-50 Alt C Harquahala MU

Map 2-51 Alt C-D Harcuvar MU

Map 2-52 Alt C Upper Agua Fria River MU (Alt C Upper AF River MU)

Map 2-53 Alt C Allocations Outside MU

Map 2-54 Alt C Wilderness Characteristics (Alt C Wilderness Characteristics)

Map 2-55 Alt C Wickenburg The Box Rec Site (Alt C Wickenburg-Box Rec Site)

Map 2-56 Alt D AFNM Special Area Designation (Alt D AFNM Special Area Des)

Map 2-57 Alt D AFNM Biological Resources (Alt D AFNM Biological Res)

Map 2-58 Alt D AFNM Cultural-Rec Resources (Alt D AFNM Cultural-Rec Res)

Map 2-59 Alt D VRM

Map 2-60 Alt D AFNM Route Network

Map 2-61 Alt D Management Units

Map 2-62 Alt D Utility-Transportation Corridor (Alt D Utility-Trans Corridor)

Map 2-63 Alt D Closed Leasable Minerals

Map 2-64 Alt D Closed Saleable Minerals

Map 2-65 Alt D Closed Locatable Minerals

Map 2-66 Alt D Castle Hot Springs MU

Map 2-67 Alt D Hassayampa MU

Map 2-68 Alt D Harquahala MU

Map 2-69 Alt D Peeples Valley MU

Map 2-70 Alt D Upper Agua Fria River MU (Alt D Upper Agua Fria MU)

Map 2-71 Alt D Wilderness Characteristics (Alt D Wilderness Characteristics)

Map 2-72 Alt E AFNM Special Area Designation (Alt E AFNM Special Area Des)

Map 2-73 Alt E AFNM Biological-Cultural Resources (Alt E AFNM Biol-Cult-Res)

Map 2-74 Alt E AFNM Resource Allocations (Alt E AFNM Res Allocation)

Map 2-75 Alt E VRM

Map 2-76 Alt E AFNM Route Network

Map 2-77 Alt E Management Units

Map 2-78 Alt E Disposal

Map 2-79 Alt E Utility-Transportation Corridors (Alt E Utility-Trans Corridor)

Map 2-80 Alt E Closed Leasable Minerals (Alt E Closed Leasable Min)
28

Map 2-81 Alt E Closed Saleable Minerals (Alt E Closed Saleable Min)

Map 2-82 Alt E Closed Locatable Minerals (Alt E Closed Locatable Min)

Map 2-83 Alt E Black Canyon MU

Map 2-84 Alt E Castle Hot Springs MU

Map 2-85 Alt E Hassayampa MU

Map 2-86 Alt E Harquahala MU

Map 2-87 Alt E Harcuvar MU

Map 2-88 Alt E Upper Agua Fria River MU (Alt E Upper Agua Fria MU)

Map 2-89 Alt E Wilderness Characteristics

Map 2-90 Alt E Morgan City Wash RD

Map 2-91 Alt E Wickenburg The Box RMZ (Alt E Wicken The Box RMZ)

Map 2-92 Tortoise Habitat

Map 2-93 Fire Land Use Allocation

Map 3-1 Soil Texture

Map 3-2 Precipitation

Map 3-3 Air Quality PM10

Map 3-4 Air Quality Carbon Monoxide CO (Air Quality Carbon Monoxide)

Map 3-5 Major Watersheds

Map 3-6 Groundwater Basins

Map 3-7 Adjudication Watersheds

Map 3-8 Vegetation Types

Map 3-9 Riparian Resources

Map 3-10 Bighorn Sheep Habitat and Important Bird Areas

Map 3-11 ROS

Map 3-12 Wilderness Characteristics (Wilderness Characteristics)

Map 3-13 VRM

Map 3-14 Potential Leasable Minerals

Map 3-15 Potential Locatable Minerals

Map 3-16 Potential Saleable Minerals

Map 3-17 Fire Land Use Allocation

Map 3-18 Human and Community Resource Units

Map 3-19 Abandoned Mines

Map 3-20 Hazardous Material Sites

Map 3-21 Route Network S BlkCny CastleHotSprings

Map 3-22 Route Network N BlkCny AFNM

Map 3-23 Route Network Upper AF

Map 3-24 Route Network Harquahala

Map 3-25 Route Network Hassayampa

Map 3-26 Route Network Peeples Valley
 Chapter One

Chapter 1

29

Chapter One - 

Introduction 

1.1 Introduction 

The Agua Fria National Monument Resource 

Management Plan (RMP), the BradshawHarquahala RMP, and their joint Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) have been prepared to 

provide guidance on current and future 

management decisions for the Bureau of Land 

Management's (BLM) Phoenix District (PD).

These plans represent the culmination of many 

months of planning on the part of BLM‘s PD 

staff, BLM Arizona State Office staff, 

representatives of communities within the 

planning areas, cooperating and collaborating 

Government agencies, special interest and user 

groups, and several hundreds of concerned 

citizens. The decisions outlined in the pages that 

follow, as a distillation of the combined 

thought, effort, and research from all those 

involved, will enable BLM to manage the Agua 

Fria National Monument as well as other BLMmanaged lands north and west of the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. These plans will also 

consolidate management decisions, now 

contained in several existing plans, in one 

comprehensive plan to guide BLM's 

management actions for years to come. 

Combined, the planning areas encompass more 

than 3 million acres in a complex mosaic of land 

ownerships and jurisdictions. BLM manages the 

resources on 967,000 surface acres within these 

planning boundaries, including the entire 70,900 

acres of Agua Fria National Monument. In 

addition, BLM retains subsurface (mineral) 

rights to 346,300 more acres within the planning 

area boundaries. Another 181,200 acres of 

subsurface mineral rights north and east of the 

planning areas are also addressed in this plan.

The Agua Fria National Monument and 

Bradshaw-Harquahala RMPs/EIS are vital to 

creating a framework for future planning 

and decision-making within the context of such 

complex ownership.

The planning areas are rich in resources. Their 

unique public lands contain archaeological sites 

and artifacts unlike those anywhere else on 

earth; providing researchers with critical insights 

into the lifestyles of the peoples who first settled 

this region of the Southwest. The lands are 

home to pronghorn antelope, mule deer, whitetailed deer, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, black 

bear, javelina, countless native songbirds, 

migratory waterfowl; and endangered and 

special-status species, such as the bald eagle, 

southwestern willow flycatcher, and Sonoran 

desert tortoise, and native fish species including 

the Gila chub and desert pupfish. Vegetation 

throughout the area ranges from creosotebush in 

the desert flats to ponderosa pine at higher 

elevations. The varied panorama of mountains, 

mesas, canyons, grasslands, and high and low 

desert vistas provide thousands of residents and 

visitors each year with unparalleled recreation 

opportunities. Thousands of local residents rely 

on these lands for their livelihood through 

mining, grazing, and tourism. The Agua Fria 

National Monument is also a part of the BLM‘s 

National Landscape Conservation System, 

comprised of designated areas that preserve 

natural landscapes for public use and enjoyment.

As the population of the Phoenix metropolitan 

area continues to grow, BLM-administered lands 

within the planning areas will receive increasing 

pressure, especially for recreation uses. The 

management decisions set forth in these plans, 

after much deliberation on the part of BLM and 

its partners, provide the broadest possible 

consensus to wisely guide management of 

these valuable resources.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Agua Fria National 

Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala RMPs is 

to guide future land management actions within 

the planning areas. These documents must not 

only give adequate guidance for management 

actions but also ensure that actions comply with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Chapter 1

30

and Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA).

The need to prepare the RMPs has been 

established by three main factors:

The Presidential Proclamation creating 

the national monument as a discrete 

management unit. 

The degree of urban expansion and 

population growth in and around the 

planning areas. 

The time that has elapsed since the last 

major planning that encompassed the 

planning areas.

The planning areas are now being managed 

under three land use plans (LUPs). While these 

plans include both planning areas, they also 

cover a much larger section of western and 

southwest Arizona. These plans are the Phoenix 

RMP and EIS (BLM 1988a); the Lower Gila 

North Management Framework Plan (BLM 

1983); and the Kingman Resource Area RMP 

and Final EIS (BLM 1993a).

On January 11, 2000, President William J. 

Clinton signed Proclamation 7263 

establishing Agua Fria National 

Monument (Appendix A). The signing of the 

proclamation represented "new or revised policy 

and changes in circumstances affecting the 

entire plan or major portions of the plan" 

(43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1610.5-

6). The proclamation restates the need to 

develop plans for managing the monument. 

Later that year, the requirement to develop a 

stand-alone plan for managing all national 

monuments was affirmed and issued to all 

BLM's State offices in Instruction Memorandum 

2001-022, Planning Guidance for National 

Monuments and National Conservation 

Areas (BLM 2000). 

Additionally, Sections 201 (43 United States 

Code [USC] 1712) and 202 (43 USC 1713) 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act and Section 1610.5-6, Revised (43 CFR 

1610.5-6) of BLM's regulations establish the 

requirement for plans to reflect existing 

conditions through maintenance or revision.

A need for consolidating and revising the 

existing plans is revealed in the following:

changes in BLM's planning process, 

growth and development in the planning 

areas, and

changes in the environment of the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

since completion of the last planning 

efforts.

An internal study completed in September 2000, 

which evaluated the Phoenix District's land use 

plans, concluded that the plans had not 

adequately kept pace with changing conditions

and needed to be revised to reflect the current 

land use and expected future conditions.

1.3 Planning Area and 

Map Setting

Agua Fria National Monument, 40 miles north 

of metropolitan Phoenix, encompasses 70,900 

acres of BLM manged land and 1,444 acres of 

scattered private parcels. It is entirely within 

Yavapai County, Arizona, to the east of 

Interstate Highway 17 (I-17), northeast of Black 

Canyon City, and southeast of Cordes Junction 

(Map 1-1). The monument is being managed in 

accordance with the following: 

Proclamation 7263 (Appendix A), 

establishing Agua Fria National 

Monument. 

The Phoenix RMP and Final EIS (BLM 

1988a).

Department of the Interior Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2002-008, Interim 

Management Policy for Bureau of Land 

Management National Monuments and 

National Conservation Areas (BLM 

2001a).

Agua Fria National Monument Current 

Management Guidance (BLM 2002). 
Chapter 1

31

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

encompassing 896,100 acres, is located within 

Maricopa, Yavapai, and La Paz Counties 

(Map1-1). Adjoining the Phoenix metropolitan 

area, this planning area has recently experienced 

significant population growth. The population 

of Maricopa County increased by 35 percent in 

the last decade; during this same period the City 

of Peoria has annexed more than 59,000 acres, 

including more than 16,000 acres of BLMmanaged land. The size of the City of Phoenix

has increased by more than 19,000 acres, 

including nearly 700 acres of BLM-managed 

land. These are only two of the growing cities 

and towns expanding their borders toward and 

into the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

The increased pressure on public lands for 

recreation, rights-of-way, mineral rights, and 

other uses; resulting from urban expansion, 

requires BLM to readdress its land use plan 

decisions. 

Scattered, isolated BLM-administered 

parcels are located outside the planning areas but 

within the BLM Phoenix 

District's administrative district (Map 1-2).

Combined, these parcels consist of 5,200 surface 

acres. In addition, BLM retains subsurface 

(mineral) rights on 181,200 acres of lands to the 

north and east of the planning areas (Map 1-2).

Surface rights on these lands are held by the 

following entities:

The Bureau of Reclamation. 

The State of Arizona. 

Counties (through Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act (R&PP) agreements). 

Private parties. 

A summary of surface management acres within 

the planning areas is described in Table 3-2.

Besides surface management acres, within the 

entire planning area there are 594,600 acres of 

BLM managed mineral estate with non-Federal 

surface ownership. Both the scattered parcels 

and subsurface lands are included in this plan 

because BLM remains responsible for managing 

them.

1.4 Process

1.4.1 Collaboration and 

Cooperation

Collaboration and cooperation are areas of 

emphasis in BLM's approach to the planning 

process. The main parties involved in these 

processes are the general public and interest 

groups, cooperating agencies, tribal 

governments, and collaborating agencies and 

groups. These participants, their roles, and 

impacts on the planning process are described 

below.

1.4.2 Community 

Collaboration and 

Community Vision

To establish valuable communication 

relationships before beginning specific planning, 

James Kent Associates (JKA), under contract to 

BLM, met with residents and community groups 

in or next to the planning areas. In addition to 

building communication networks for the formal 

planning process, JKA received citizens‘ inputs

on issues and concerns related to BLM's 

land management practices and helped citizens 

gain a better understanding of the land use 

planning process. JKA's staff informally visited 

with residents in the following settings: 

in community settings, 

in civic and social group meetings, and

in the communities of Wickenburg, 

Yarnell, Buckeye, Tonopah, Castle Hot 

Springs, New River, Black Canyon City, 

Cordes Junction, Mayer, Dewey,

Humboldt, Prescott Valley, and 

Phoenix.

Contacts were also made in Flagstaff and 

Prescott, Arizona.

Once established, communication networks 

served as an integral link between BLM, 

citizens, and communities by fostering interest 
Chapter 1

32

and participation in the planning process. When 

BLM's managers and staff communicate and 

collaborate with communities on RMPs and 

planning issues, the plans are considerably more 

successful than those prescribing a process or 

those that do not consider the issues, needs, 

insights, assets, or resources of local 

communities.

To begin preparing the Agua Fria National 

Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala RMPs 

and EIS, a series of workshops for both scoping 

and development of the Alternatives described 

in Chapter 2 and in the Introduction, were held 

in central community locations. The series of 

informal meetings provided the citizens and the 

BLM's managers with time to reflect on the 

local issues between discussions. At the same 

time, citizens' interests were viewed side by side 

with BLM's management concerns, allowing 

planners to integrate management concerns with 

community interests in ways that fostered 

collaboration and; more importantly, shared land 

stewardship.

These workshops encouraged citizens to do the 

following:

refine issues, 

discuss visions for the future of public 

lands, and 

begin exploring alternative ways to 

manage public lands and resources.

BLM considered citizen's input, from both 

groups and individuals, as they developed the 

Alternatives. Additionally, citizens 

could submit formulated Alternatives as well as 

vision statements for specific community areas 

or resources. These ideas were also considered 

in the range of Alternatives, and analyzed in the 

EIS.

The BLM's planning process has fostered the 

climate for effective community visioning of 

their future in relationship to public lands. In 

many cases those visions have been integrated 

into local, regional, and other planning efforts.

Those visions have thus expanded the value of 

the collaborative environment supported by the 

BLM's planning process. 

Overall, the collaborative environment has 

resulted in open communication. Additionally, 

this environment has created an increased sense 

of public ownership of the following:

the planning process, 

the decisions that result from it, and 

the importance of collaborative 

stewardship as a strategy for 

implementation. 

1.4.3 Community Vision 

Statements

As part of an extensive community 

collaboration throughout the planning process, 

several communities prepared community vision 

statements. These statements played an integral 

role in developing the overall vision for these 

plans. Following are the vision statements 

developed by each community.

These statements are presented not as an 

endorsement by BLM, but rather to show the 

interrelationship between BLM-managed lands

and the people who live, work, and recreate 

around these lands. These statements do not 

reflect the visions of all members of the 

community. They are the collective thoughts 

of citizens who chose to participate in the 

planning process. Furthermore, certain vision 

statements propose actions that are beyond the 

scope of BLM's legal authority to influence or 

implement.

1.4.3.1 Black Canyon City

The ultimate desire of the citizens of Black 

Canyon City is the preservation of the rural 

nature of our community and the natural beauty 

of our surroundings. Coincidental to that desire 

is the retention of open space to be used for 

designated public recreational activities. The 

community would like a sufficient amount of 

BLM-managed lands surrounding the town 

dedicated to future development of public trails, 

nature preserves, and riparian areas. A 

sufficient amount of land would be a minimum 

depth of five miles from the private property 
Chapter 1

33

lines around the community. The State Trust 

Lands within that area would be purchased by 

BLM for inclusion in the designated open space.

The community would like the viewshed 

protected from the town to the mountaintops in 

all directions. Limiting further commercial or 

residential development will also help protect 

the limited water supply in our area. In support 

of these considerations, many residents have 

expressed an interest in working with BLM and 

other communities to assure continued 

protection, cleanliness, access, and enjoyment of 

the public lands in our area.

1.4.3.2 Castle Hot Springs

Our community has a vision to maintain our 

remote yet reachable lifestyle, yet we also 

recognize that recreational use will increase and 

needs to be accommodated. This is not only an 

enforcement issue for the BLM, Yavapai and 

Maricopa counties, and the City of Peoria, but 

also an increasing social issue for our 

community. With this in mind, our community 

embraces the following as a means to maintain 

our way of life, as well as deal with increased 

outside pressure:

Existing, historically described roads on 

BLM land must be mapped, legally 

described, and dedicated so as to ensure 

that residents and property owners can 

continue to access and use their lands 

into perpetuity. 

We need to seriously consider a 

recreational-user fee, earmarked for the 

local community, imposed on nonresidents to help fund the substantially 

increasing costs associated with 

recreational uses. 

Existing roads (whether public, private, 

or easement) located in areas subject to 

occasional inundation will be exempt 

from permitting requirements for 

continued maintenance in this area. 

In considering changes in the use of 

private property in this area, the county 

or city will not be permitted to consider 

federal goals and objectives for the 

surrounding property. 

All federal lands in the Lake Pleasant 

area are to be treated the same as 

private property with regard to 

obtaining new or perfecting existing 

legal and physical access. 

Mineral rights retained by BLM in this 

area under private property will be 

transferred gratis to the surface owners. 

We want a community-based 

stewardship group to proactively plan 

and later provide expertise, labor, and 

cultural wisdom with BLM on all 

recreational uses, including but not 

limited to non-motorized and motorized 

trails. 

Many of the existing water wells are in 

the "younger alluvium" as currently 

defined by recent case law. 

Encourage the re-establishment of a 

northern loop road around Lake 

Pleasant linking to Table Mesa Road at 

I-17 for health/safety/welfare purposes. 

Target shooting needs to be encouraged 

in appropriate and safe areas. Our 

community is willing, as a stewardship 

group, to counsel BLM on appropriate 

areas for target shooting. 

Encourage appropriate discreet cell-site 

development to provide for better law 

enforcement telecommunications. 

1.4.3.3 Dewey Humboldt -

Friends of the Agua Fria River 

Basin

Our vision is based on the overwhelming 

grassroots support for retaining public lands for 

open space made during BLM's scoping 

comment process. Imagine living here a half a 

century from now. What would we like our 

public lands and our communities to look like?

The following vision is written as if today is in 

the year 2050. It describes what can be seen 

and what took place back in 2003 to make that a 

reality. Please share in this dream for the 

future. In the year 2050, we envision the 

following: 
Chapter 1

34

The BLM Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

(including the local communities of Dewey, 

Humboldt, Mayer, Spring Valley, and Cordes 

Lakes) represents preserved and protected 

tracks of open space that have sustained their 

natural health, diversity, and productivity 

throughout the first half of the 21st century.

These tracts of land are crowded by an 

uncontrolled urban sprawl. This development 

explosion stretches from Phoenix to Black 

Canyon City and continues toward the west and 

north along the highway corridors to Prescott 

and Flagstaff. The Agua Fria National 

Monument and the expanded BLM-managed 

lands in the Cordes Junction, Mayer, Dewey, 

and Humboldt areas (referred to as the Upper 

Agua Fria Basin) are the only open space areas 

along major roadways. Not surprisingly, these 

open spaces have been a significant factor in 

maintaining the rural character within a large 

section of central Arizona.

BLM continues to work with the Yavapai County 

Board of Supervisors to support a staunch 

conservation of the natural and human 

ecological relationships within the county. The 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area has 

become a showcase of ecological and rural 

community sustainability. It provides numerous 

recreational opportunities for the large and 

growing urban areas within the state of Arizona, 

as well as examples of sound traditional 

agricultural enterprises. These multiple uses of 

the land include protection of human antiquities, 

continued environmentally sustainable ranching, 

hunting, fishing, hiking, equestrian use, bird 

watching, planned off-road vehicle access, wild 

river designations, and ecologically responsible 

mining.

BLM has continued to successfully manage these 

lands to preserve water flow and water 

recharge. They have done this by ensuring that 

all riparian tributaries and supporting uplands 

feeding the Agua Fria River and monument have 

remained in their natural state. Wildlife habitat 

(and corridors) has been identified and 

protected predominately through the expansion 

of lands under BLM supervision. This 

expansion of BLM-managed lands took place 

almost half a century ago (around 2003-04). At 

that time, all lands originally identified for 

disposal under the old management plan were 

reclassified and retained as open space under 

federal ownership.

BLM then furthered their commitment to 

protecting open space for multiple uses by either 

forming partnerships with state and other 

federal agencies, or directly acquiring wide 

strips of land on either side of the existing BLMmanaged lands within Yavapai County. This 

allowed BLM to successfully buffer their 

original parcels from development and 

encroachment. It is interesting to note that in 

the early part of the 21st century BLM honored 

the wishes of the people they served (to keep 

public land public and to protect open space).

This visionary and courageous action resulted in 

preserving a large section of central Arizona for 

the native flora and fauna, as well as the use 

and enjoyment of many generations of 

Arizonans.

1.4.3.4 New River

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

maintains the wild and scenic character of 

today, while continuing to provide an array of 

public opportunities in the future for visual 

resources, water, education, recreation, and 

exploration within the framework of a healthy, 

properly functioning landscape. This does 

include grazing and/or other commercial 

endeavors, if they are consistent with and 

support the overall vision. Emphasis is on 

maintaining the scenic views and recreational 

opportunities while protecting the watershed 

function.

1.4.3.5 Wickenburg

The Wickenburg Outdoor Recreation Committee 

seeks to establish a system of world-class 

equestrian trails surrounding Wickenburg that 

will buffer the area from Phoenix valley urban 

sprawl, and preserve the open space value of the 

local landscape. The area of this trail system 

will afford a multitude of opportunities for all 

recreational enthusiasts, and serve to enhance 

the lifestyles of all community members.
Chapter 1

35

1.4.4 Collaborating 

Agencies and Other 

Stakeholder Groups

A variety of entities played a vital role in the 

planning process. These collaborating groups 

did the following:

attended meetings, 

made databases and information 

available, 

provided peer reviews, and 

helped develop Alternatives.

These included people from the following 

organizations:

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AGFD), 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

(ADOT), 

Maricopa County, 

Yavapai County, 

City of Phoenix, 

City of Peoria, 

Tonto National Forest, 

Prescott National Forest, and 

Luke Air Force Base.

Representatives from the following 

organizations also met to discuss issues directly 

related to future communication right-of-way 

needs:

American Tower Corporation, 

Campbell A&Z, LLC, 

Phoenix Planning Department; 

Crown Castle, 

Delta Group International, 

Ironwood Real Estate for Verizon 

Wireless, 

QWEST Wireless LLC, 

Tierra Right-of-Way, 

T-Mobile, and 

West & Company. 

Representatives from the following 

organizations met to discuss future utility rightsof-way (ROW) needs:

Arizona Public Service (APS), 

Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona 

Projects Office, 

Phoenix Planning Department, 

El Paso Natural Gas Company, 

Kinder Morgan,

Salt River Project (SRP); and 

Southwest Gas. 

Representatives from the following 

organizations met to discuss future 

transportation right-of-way needs:

ADOT, 

City of Peoria, Phoenix Planning 

Department, 

Phoenix Street Transportation 

Department, 

Copland Associates, 

Federal Highway Administration, 

Maricopa Association of Governments, 

Town of Buckeye, and 

Yavapai County.

1.4.5 Tribal Coordination 

and Consultation

During the scoping period, BLM began 

consulting with Indian tribes who have oral 

traditions or cultural concerns relating to the 

planning areas, or who are documented as 

having occupied or used portions of these areas 

during historic times. These tribes include the 

following: 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, 

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, 

Yavapai-Apache Indian Community at 

Camp Verde, 

Hopi Tribe, 

Gila River Indian Community,

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community, 

Ak-Chin Indian Community, 
Chapter 1

36

Tohono O'odham Nation, 

Colorado River Indian Tribes, and 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe.

The planning areas include tribal lands near 

Prescott, administered by the Yavapai-Prescott 

Tribe. 

Tribal leaders were first contacted by certified 

mail. Copies of that contact letter were also 

sent to tribal cultural heritage program 

leaders and specialists. Follow-up contacts 

included meetings, field tours, and presentations 

to representatives of tribal heritage programs. 

BLM staff gave planning updates at meetings 

with tribes through the various stages of the 

planning process, including scoping, 

development of Alternatives, and release of the 

Draft RMPs/EIS.

1.4.6 Cooperating Agencies

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations, which are contained in 40 CFR 

1501.6 and 1508.5, implement the NEPA

mandate that Federal agencies responsible for 

preparing NEPA analysis and documentation do 

so "in cooperation with State and local 

governments," and other agencies with 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise (42 USC 

4331(a), 4332(2)). In support of this mandate, 

BLM invited a broad range of local, State, tribal, 

and Federal agencies to attend a series of 

meetings with the aim of developing 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) that 

would establish cooperating agency status with 

BLM. Cooperating agency status allows 

interested agencies to assume responsibilities 

beyond attending public meetings, and to both 

review and comment on plan documents.

MOUs describe the responsibilities of BLM and 

the cooperating agency during the planning 

process. For example, city and county planners 

are particularly well acquainted with methods 

for predicting growth patterns within their 

communities. A city or a county government 

may be willing to share that expertise and would 

do so through the support of a cooperating 

agency MOU. To date, the ADOT, 

AGFD, Yavapai County, Tonto National Forest, 

Prescott National Forest, City of Peoria, and 

Luke Air Force Base each have MOUs in some 

stage of completion from draft to signed, 

agreeing to become cooperators for the Agua 

Fria National Monument and BradshawHarquahala RMP and EIS.

1.5 Mission and Goals

BLM's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, 

and productivity of the public lands for the use 

and enjoyment of present and future generations. 

In keeping with its mandate for developing 

multi-use management plans, BLM developed 

overall goals for both the Agua Fria National 

Monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Areas. These goals support a rich 

variety of public experiences, while 

simultaneously providing for long-term 

protection of the natural resources within each 

planning area. The goals for each planning area 

have been carefully developed in consideration 

of BLM's overall mission and with careful 

regard to the communities and groups that will 

be affected by future BLM management's 

decisions for the planning area.

1.5.1 Agua Fria National 

Monument

The Agua Fria National Monument was created 

to protect an array of cultural, historical, 

biological, geological, and hydrological objects.

These objects, both individually and 

collectively, in the context of the natural 

environment that supports and protects them; are 

referred to as ―monument objects,‖ ―monument 

resources,‖ or ―monument values‖ throughout 

this document.

Purpose, significance, mission, and goal 

statements clarify the intent of the monument‘s 

proclamation and are used to shape the 

development of a management plan. The 

purpose statement clarifies why the monument 

was set aside as a unit for special management.

The significance statement addresses what 
Chapter 1

37

makes the area unique. Lastly, the mission and 

the goal statements reflect ideal conditions 

which managers should strive to attain. The 

BLM developed goal statements for the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area based on 

management principals identified by FLPMA of 

1976, as amended. 

1.5.1.1 Purpose

Agua Fria National Monument was established 

to preserve and protect, for present and future 

generations, its exceptional scientific and 

historic resources. These resources are defined 

in the monument's proclamation (Appendix A) 

as the objects to be protected:

Archaeological remnants of prehistoric 

villages, rock art, agricultural systems, and 

other sites that composed one of the few 

remaining systems of prehistoric pueblo 

communities in central Arizona during the 

period A.D. 1250 to 1450. 

A cultural landscape that encompasses 

several hundred archaeological sites of 

diverse types within an undeveloped 

setting. These resources provide 

outstanding opportunities for scientists to 

study the interrelationships among 

prehistoric communities in their social and 

environmental contexts. 

Historic sites that reveal the progression of 

ranching and mining in a rugged area that 

posed environmental challenges to early 

settlers. 

A diverse set of topographic features that 

support an expansive mosaic of semi-desert 

grassland, transected by ribbons of rare and 

valuable riparian forest. 

A diversity of vegetation communities and 

water sources that provide habitat for a wide 

array of wildlife species.

1.5.1.2 Significance

Agua Fria National Monument includes a large 

portion of the Perry Mesa Archaeological 

District, which is listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places. The district was established 

to recognize and protect a particularly wellpreserved system of prehistoric communities 

that were inhabited between A.D. 1250 and 

1450.

The spatial interrelationships among hundreds of 

irreplaceable archaeological sites are preserved 

on the monument's landscape. These resources 

offer unprecedented opportunities for scientific 

research, public education, and the preservation 

of ancestral sites and heritage values that are 

important to Indian tribes.

The monument contains a large component of 

the Agua Fria watershed, with free-flowing 

reaches of perennial streams and associated 

riparian zones that have become rare 

environmental features in Arizona.

The Agua Fria River, which crosses the 

monument through rolling hills and the Agua 

Fria River Canyon, has been determined to be 

suitable for designation to the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (WSR) by virtue of its 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, cultural, and 

wildlife values.

The mesas support one of the largest 

undeveloped expanses of desert grassland in 

Arizona. Herds of pronghorn, which are at risk 

in much of Arizona, inhabit these grasslands.

The monument offers valuable opportunities for

sustaining these important resources and for the 

scientific study of grassland ecosystems, 

environmental changes related to the effects of 

wildfires, and the use of prescribed fires to 

achieve resource management objectives.

The mesas, canyons, and streams support an 

uncommon diversity of vegetation communities. 

This variety provides habitat for many wildlife 

species including desert tortoise, lowland 

leopard frog, Mexican garter snake, common 

black hawk, Gila chub, longfin dace, speckled 

dace, and desert sucker.

Despite its closeness to urban areas, the 

monument contains remote, primitive areas that 

offer excellent opportunities for solitude and the 

appreciation of outstanding scenic values.

Several remote canyons are oases that feature 
Chapter 1

38

springs and unusually lush growth of riparian 

plants and rare species.

1.5.1.3 Mission

BLM will protect and sustain the extraordinary 

combination of cultural, natural, and scientific 

resources within Agua Fria National Monument 

and, to the extent consistent with resource

protection, will provide opportunities for 

scientific research, public education, recreation, 

and other activities compatible with resource 

protection.

1.5.1.4 Goals

Natural and cultural resources and associated 

values are protected, restored, and maintained in 

good condition and managed within the broader 

context of ecosystems and cultural landscapes.

The protection of cultural, biological, and 

physical resources, which the monument was 

created for, receives the highest priority in 

project planning and the management of 

resources and land uses.

Cultural resources are protected and managed 

for scientific, heritage, and educational values.

Selected archaeological sites are developed for 

public visitation and interpreted to explain how 

humans have used and modified the desert 

grasslands over the past 2,000 years.

Diverse habitats, vegetation communities, and 

corridors of connectivity are conserved, and 

restored to sustain a wide range of native 

species. Habitats for special status and sensitive 

species are protected and recovered to support 

viable populations.

The Agua Fria River and its tributaries are 

managed to sustain and enhance their freeflowing character, water quality, and associated 

riparian values.

As a focus of scientific studies, the monument 

supports the following: 

relevant research priorities in the natural and 

social sciences, 

interdisciplinary studies, and 

the development of effective resource 

management strategies.

Decisions about resource and visitor 

management are based on scientific information. 

Visitors have opportunities to view scenic vistas, 

wildlife, and archaeological sites through a 

variety of appropriate and sustainable activities.

The preservation of natural quiet and primitive 

settings is emphasized in zones possessing these 

values. The public receives the information 

needed to ensure safe and enjoyable experiences.

Facilities, such as parking areas and trails, are 

developed so they ensure visual enjoyment and 

public safety, while protecting monument 

values.

The public understands and appreciates the 

purpose and significance of Agua Fria National 

Monument and the benefits of protecting its 

resources for present and future generations.

BLM respects valid existing rights and manages 

authorized uses and facilities to protect 

monument resources.

BLM enters into active partnerships with local 

and regional communities, Government 

agencies, Indian tribes, academic institutions, 

and organizations. These partnerships foster 

management practices that protect resources, 

support communities, and promote public 

education. Volunteers significantly contribute to 

resource protection, scientific studies, and public 

outreach.

1.5.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area

Within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

is an opportunity to support the development of 

sustainable ecosystems with long-term 

productivity. This opportunity allows local 

communities to identify with and have a 

relationship with the surrounding landscape.

This sense of community also extends to the 
Chapter 1

39

public wishing to escape the urban environment 

and enjoy the rural qualities and sense of 

solitude within this planning area. In addition to 

this sense of solitude, this planning area 

offers abundant multi-use opportunities. These 

opportunities include an array of increasingly 

popular recreation activities, along with more 

traditional or historical uses, which need to be 

managed to avoid degrading the land and its 

resources. Establishing and encouraging a sense 

of stewardship among each of its many users 

will ensure availability of all resources for future 

generations.

1.5.2.1 Goals

In cooperation with community partners and 

collaborating agencies, BLM has developed the 

following list of overall management goals for 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area:

Engage communities and encourage 

partnerships with those who have a stake in 

the management and protection of resources

in the planning area. Provide opportunities 

for public education, volunteerism, 

visitation, and enjoyment of resources in a 

manner consistent with resource protection. 

Form partnerships in cooperative 

management adjacent and intermingled 

lands. 

Provide for cooperative management of 

contiguous public lands for recreation and 

maintaining/restoring wildlife habitats.

Support public understanding, enjoyment, 

and appreciation of public lands and

resources, and promote visitor safety. 

Work with communities and other interests 

to meet the need for resources, and 

infrastructure for growing communities in 

the planning area. 

Manage lands to contribute to the social, 

economic, and environment health and 

sustainability of communities. 

Develop outreach programs that encourage 

thoughtful use and social responsibility, for

stewardship of BLM-administered lands. 

Restore and maintain the natural 

environments that characterize a healthy, 

unfragmented landscape. 

Support a diverse, flourishing community of 

plants and wildlife. 

Restore and maintain the area's capacity to 

capture, store, and safely release water. 

Retain the scenic quality of the area as a 

legacy for current and future generations of 

residents and visitors. 

Sustain a diversity of recreation benefits and 

opportunities, while minimizing harm 

to natural and cultural resources. 

1.6 Planning Issues

1.6.1 Introduction to the 

Scoping Process

For this planning effort BLM emphasized 

compliance with the public involvement 

requirements in the following: 

CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1501.7 

FLPMA Section (a) of 43 USC 1713 

BLM regulations in 43 CFR 1610.2

The process also followed the provisions of 

Executive Order 12898 ("Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations") 

and later BLM's guidelines in Instruction 

Memorandum 2002-164 on environmental 

justice.

Several procedures encouraged public 

participation in the scoping process. Public 

outreach began before the planning actions were 

initiated, by publishing the Notice of Intent 

(NOI) in the Federal Register on April 24, 2002 

(67 FR 20148). This outreach established lines 

of communications with a spectrum of 

community and user groups in and around the 

planning areas. These lines of communication 

facilitated public participation when the RMP

planning requirements were defined. This

activity is explained in detail in the Community 

Collaboration and Community Vision section of 

this chapter. Planning bulletins, including 

sections specific to soliciting public input, were 
Chapter 1

40

periodically distributed throughout the planning 

process. 

The formal scoping process began with the 

publication of the NOI, and ended on 

November 15, 2002. The NOI briefly described 

the project and announced BLM's intent to 

develop RMPs for both Agua Fria National 

Monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area. Although there is a formal end 

date to the public comment period in this initial 

scoping phase, BLM's policy is to accept public 

comments and other input throughout the

planning process. Results of the formal scoping 

phase are included as Appendix B.

1.6.2 Issues and 

Management Concerns

Issues were identified for both planning areas 

through a combination of the following:

public input, 

BLM‘s knowledge of the land and 

management requirements, and 

coordination with local Native American 

tribes and with Federal, State, and local 

agencies. 

These issues were summarized in the Scoping 

Report for the Agua Fria National 

Monument/Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Areas (Jones & Stokes 2003), which 

was released to the public through a variety of 

means. Also included in the scoping report were 

the outcomes of coordination with local Native 

American tribes and Federal, State, and local 

agencies. Table 1-1 (located in the Additional 

Tables section) lists issues that reflect the scope 

of planning decisions addressed in the 

formulation of the Alternatives in Chapter 2. 

Table 1-2 also lists management issues that 

reflect the scope of planning decisions addressed 

in Chapter 2.

1.7 Laws, 

Regulations, Policies, 

Planning Criteria, and 

Existing Land Use 

Plans

The BLM's planning process is governed by 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) (43 USC 1711) and 43 CFR 

1600, which governs the administrative review 

process for most BLM's decisions. Land use 

plans ensure that BLM-administered public 

lands are managed in accordance with the intent 

of Congress as stated in FLPMA and under the 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

As required by FLPMA, public lands must be 

managed in a manner that protects the quality of 

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 

environmental, air and atmospheric, water 

resource, and archaeological values; that, where 

appropriate, preserves and protects certain 

public lands in their natural condition and 

provides food and habitat for fish and wildlife 

and domestic animals; and provides for outdoor 

recreation and human occupancy and use by 

encouraging collaboration and public 

participation throughout the planning process.

In addition, public lands must be managed to 

help meet our Nation‘s needs for domestic 

sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from 

public lands.

Land use plans are the main mechanism for 

guiding BLM's activities to achieve the mission 

and goals outlined in the BLM's Strategic Plan 

(BLM 1997). The Agua Fria National 

Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area RMPs were produced in accordance 

with Federal statutes and regulations (Appendix 

C). The selected planning approach is consistent 

with the requirements in FLPMA and BLM 

regulations, as most currently defined in the 

revised BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook

(H-1601-1). The process also complies with the 

set of instruction memoranda, information 

bulletins, and other BLM's manuals, handbooks, 
Chapter 1

41

and strategic plans that embody the most current 

BLM's business practices on conduct of the 

process and the content of any resulting 

documents.

As part of the BLM's planning process, resource 

specific Strategic Plans are developed at the 

national level that establish the overall direction 

for programs within the BLM. These plans are 

guided by the requirements of the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993, cover a 5 

year period, and are updated every 3 

years. They are consistent with FLPMA 

and other laws affecting the public lands.

Several management plans, programmatic 

documents, and standards and guidelines were 

considered in the preparing the RMPs. These 

documents include the following:

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (BLM 

1988a); 

Lower Gila North Management Framework 

Plan (BLM 1983); 

Kingman Resource Management Plan (BLM 

1993); 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Administration

(BLM 1997); 

Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Legislative Environmental Impact Statement

(BLM 1994b); and

Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan 

Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air quality 

Management (BLM 2004). 

Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila 

North Management Framework Plan and 

the Lower Gila South Resource 

Management Plan and Decision Record

(BLM 2005). 

Executive orders 11644 and 11989 OffRoad Vehicles on the Public Lands (1972 

and 1977)

BLM has examined these documents not only to 

ensure proper integration and compliance, but 

also to determine which information is still 

suitable for including in the RMPs and 

which decisions are still valid and can be carried 

forward into the RMPs being prepared. BLM 

has also considered activity plans that have been 

tiered off the existing land use plans. These 

activity plans may need to be revised to conform 

to the new RMPs.

1.8 Relationship to 

Other Plans

Title II, Section 202 of FLPMA guides BLM's 

land use planning coordination with Native 

American tribes, other Federal departments, 

State agencies, and local governments. BLM is 

instructed to do the following: 

stay informed of State, local, and tribal 

plans; 

ensure that it considers these plans in its 

own planning; and 

help resolve inconsistencies between such 

plans and BLM's planning. 

The provisions of this section of FLPMA are 

repeated in Section 1610.3 of BLM Resource 

Management Planning regulations.

In keeping with the provision of this section, 

BLM informed State, local, and tribal officials 

of the planning process through the previously 

described mailings and meetings. The following 

is a list of plans reviewed during the Agua Fria 

National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala 

planning efforts.

Prescott National Forest Proposed Action: 

Forest Plan Amendment, November 2001.

Wildlife 2006: The Arizona Game and Fish 

Department's (AGFD) Wildlife Management 

Program Strategic Plan for the Years 2001-

2006, Finalized January 22, 2001. 

Maricopa Association of Governments: 

Desert Spaces Environmentally Sensitive 

Development Areas (ESDA) Policies and

Design Guidelines, June 2000. 

Maricopa County 2020, Eye to the Future 

Comprehensive Plan, Adopted October 20, 

1997, Revised August 7, 2002. 

Maricopa County Mobile Planning Area 

Land Use Plan, Adopted August 12, 1991. 
Chapter 1

42

Yavapai County General Plan, Adopted 

April 7, 2003. 

City of Peoria General Plan, December 

2002. 

City of Phoenix General Plan, Adopted 

December 5, 2001. 

Town of Wickenburg General Plan, Adopted 

1988. 

Town of Buckeye General Development 

Plan, Adopted September 18, 2001. 

Town of Prescott Valley General Plan, 

Adopted January 17, 2002. 

Management Plan for the Sonoran Desert 

Population of the Desert Tortoise in 

Arizona, Arizona Interagency Desert 

Tortoise Team, December 1996. 

Desert Pupfish Recovery Plan, 1993. 

Final Recovery Plan, Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher, August 2002. 

Southwestern Bald Eagle Recovery Plan,

1982. 

Draft Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery 

Plan, 1998 (original approval: March 15, 

1984). 

Spikedace Recovery Plan, 1991.
Chapter Two

Chapter 2

43

Chapter 2 -

Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present 

the combinations of public land uses and 

resource management practices that address 

issues identified during the scoping process.

This chapter describes in detail the No-Action 

(current management) Alternative and four 

Action Alternatives for the Agua Fria National 

Monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Areas (Map 1-1). Each Alternative 

varies in both perspective and intensity of 

management. In addition, each 

Alternative consists of a set of land use 

allocations and management actions needed to 

implement the Alternative. The components of 

each Alternative are later reviewed for potential 

environmental impacts. The results of this 

review are presented in Chapter 4.

In addition to the Agua Fria National 

Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Areas, this document addresses several 

scattered, isolated parcels of BLM-managed 

Federal lands, even though they are not 

within either planning area. These scattered 

parcels, shown in (Map 1-2), are discussed in 

detail in the Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives section of this chapter.

This document analyzes management goals and 

objectives that BLM is proposing for Federal 

lands under our authority. However, lands under 

the jurisdiction of BLM are not always under 

complete Federal ownership. These lands, 

referred to as "split estate" lands, can be 

managed by BLM in accordance with the goals 

and objectives stated here only to the extent that 

the public has direct ownership of the land.

Split estate lands limit BLM‘s ability to manage 

for minerals, visual resources, wildlife habitat 

and surface occupancy. When reviewing this 

document or using any final land use plan 

prepared by BLM, the reader is advised to 

research land status to determine the extent of 

BLM's control and to ascertain the extent to 

which a land use plan may be applicable to a 

particular parcel of land. There is a total of 

594,600 split estate acres with Federal mineral 

ownership and non-Federal surface ownership.

Out of this total, 181,200 acres are outside the 

planning areas to the north and east (Map 2-1). 

Each Alternative represents a general theme; in 

that, the actions to implement its land use 

allocations have been selected to promote a 

unifying theme. However, all allocations and 

associated actions must meet BLM‘s 

overarching principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield. The complete management 

guidance for each Alternative 

includes management from the Management 

Common to All Action Alternatives section that 

follows the detailed discussions of Alternatives 

B, C, D, and E. Please pay particular attention 

to the definitions of allocations, Desired Future 

Conditions (DFC), and management actions that 

apply to all Alternatives. The complete 

management of any Alternative must include the 

actions in the Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives section of this chapter. 

Alternative A Current Management: 

Alternative A is the current 

management situation for both the Agua Fria 

National Monument and the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. Alternative A will 

serve as a baseline for most resource and land 

use allocations. The current management 

Alternative contains the decisions guiding 

BLM's management today. This Alternative is 

often called the No-Action Alternative because 

it represents the way BLM would manage within 

the planning areas if the Resource Management 

Plans/Environmental Impact Statement 

(RMPs/EIS) effort were not conducted. These 

decisions have been organized to make them as 

consistent as possible with the way the "action" 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E, have been 

organized. This organization will provide the 

reader with an approach to compare current 
Chapter 2

44

management with that suggested in 

each Alternative. 

Alternative B Management for Increased 

Recreational Use: Alternative B plans for 

increased public use and includes more 

recreation-related development, consistent with 

protecting monument resources. Alternative 

B also allows visitation and development within 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area while 

ensuring that resource protection is not 

compromised. 

Alternative C Management for Use and 

Landscape Protection: Alternative C would 

give visitors opportunities to experience the 

natural landscapes and cultural resource setting 

of the monument. Generally, Alternative C

would impose more restrictive decisions than 

would Alternative B. In the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area Alternative C

would put more emphasis on identifying and 

protecting undeveloped landscapes 

than Alternative B. 

Alternative D Management for Primitive 

Landscape Protection: Alternative 

D emphasizes protecting undeveloped, primitive 

landscapes in the monument, resulting in limited 

public use and the withdrawal of authorized 

grazing. In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area Alternative D emphasizes natural 

landscapes and non-motorized recreation, with 

more management dedicated to maintaining 

primitive recreation opportunities than under the 

other Alternatives.

Alternative E Management for Use and 

Resource Sustainability: Alternative E is a 

combination of elements selected from the other 

Alternatives that were later studied and further 

refined. Alternative E is BLM‘s Proposed RMP 

Alternative. This Alternative is designed to 

respond most comprehensively to each of the 

issues and management concerns identified in 

the planning process. BLM has determined that 

the management actions in Alternative E would 

provide the optimal balance between authorized 

resource use and the protection and long-term 

sustainability of sensitive resources within the 

planning areas.

The Alternatives presented in this chapter 

address the Agua Fria National 

Monument Planning Area first, followed by the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. To 

facilitate development and presentation of 

management scenarios, the planning areas have 

been divided into distinct geographical units 

called Management Units (MUs). In size and 

planning scale, Agua Fria National Monument 

is itself a Management Unit. The MUs within 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

provide a geographic orientation and a 

community focus for management. These units 

roughly correspond to the Community Resource 

Units (CRUs) that were mapped as part of the 

collaborative planning process, with boundaries 

adjusted to include areas of resource 

management challenges in those units.

Special Designations Used in this Document

Several designations within the national 

monument and specific MUs distinguish the 

land use under various Alternatives.

Special Designations - The following are special 

designations for protecting one or more sensitive 

resources:

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC), designated by the 

BLM, which include: 

o Outstanding Natural Areas 

(ONAs):

ACECs that contain unusual 

natural characteristics and are 

managed mainly for educational 

and recreation purposes.

o Research Natural Areas 

(RNAs): ACECs that contain 

natural resources of scientific 

interest and are managed mainly 

for research and educational 

purposes. 

o Biological or Cultural ACECs:

ACECs that contain cultural or 

biological resources that are of 
Chapter 2

45

at least regional significance 

and are mainly managed to 

preserve these values. An 

ACEC could contain

combinations of the 

aforementioned values and be

managed to simultaneously 

preserve or enhance all 

resources within it. 

Wilderness Areas - Areas designated by 

Congress as wilderness and added to the 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) - River 

systems that meet eligibility and 

suitability requirements may be 

designated by Congress to preserve their 

free-flowing condition and to protect 

their water quality and identified 

outstandingly remarkable values.

Back Country Byways - Routes 

designated by the BLM because of the 

scenic quality of the landscape or 

interpretive opportunities for various 

levels of vehicular travel. 

National Recreation Trails - The 

National Trail System Act of 1968 

(Public Law 90-543) authorized creation 

of a national trail system comprised of 

National Recreation Trails, National 

Scenic Trails, and National Historic 

Trails. National Recreation Trails may 

be designated by the Secretary of 

Interior to recognize exemplary trails of 

local and regional significance. 

Land Use Allocations Used in This Document

In addition to the special designations described 

above, several BLM allocations were used to 

focus management in certain areas to address 

particular resource needs. The following is a list 

of the allocations used:

Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) –

General areas that are managed to 

enhance the habitat of one or more 

wildlife species. 

Special Cultural Resource 

Management Area (SCRMA) - An area 

containing cultural resources that are of 

special importance for public use, 

scientific use, and traditional use or 

other uses as defined in BLM's Manual 

8110.4. 

Special Recreation Management Areas

(SRMAs) - Areas of intensive recreation 

use that will be managed to retain the 

recreation opportunities while protecting 

other resources and reducing user 

conflicts. 

o Recreation Management Zones

(RMZs) - Areas within SRMAs 

with particular recreation 

management focus or resource 

challenges. 

 Front Country RMZ -

Recreation management 

zone where management will 

focus on maintaining multiple 

types of access for recreation 

and interpretive opportunities. 

 Back Country RMZ -

Recreation management 

zone where management will 

focus on maintaining the 

natural landscape and 

primitive recreation 

opportunities. 

 Passage RMZ - Recreation 

management zone 

that provides for motorized 

access and vehicle-based 

activities such as dispersed 

camping through the Back 

Country RMZ. 

Extensive Recreation Management 

Areas (ERMAs) - Areas that are not 

allocated to SRMAs are allocated to 

ERMAs. These are areas where 

recreation management is limited to 

custodial actions. 

Lands Allocated to Maintain Wilderness 

Characteristics - Areas that contain 

resource values of naturalness, 

outstanding opportunities for solitude 

and primitive, unconfined recreation 
Chapter 2

46

where maintaining these values 

represents a major management focus. 

Visual Resource Management Classes

(VRM) - These allocations are 

to establish standards for managing 

visual change to the landscape when 

management or development activities 

are proposed. The VRM Classes and 

standards are described 

in Section 2.7.1.8 discussion of the 

Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Off Highway Vehicle allocations of 

Open, Closed, and Limited (OHV) - All 

BLM's lands will be allocated to one of 

these levels of OHV use as described in 

the BLM's Land Use Planning 

Handbook H-1601-1, Appendix C II D. 

These land use allocations are described in detail 

for all the Alternatives. Areas that are not 

afforded special management by the 

designations and allocations described above 

will be administered according to the 

management actions described in Section 2.7, 

Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives, and in the Management 

Units sections of this chapter.

2.1.1 Summary of Changes 

from the Draft to the 

Proposed RMPs/Final EIS

This section is included to describe the changes 

made in format or content of the documents in 

response to public and other state or Federal 

agency comments and concerns, as well as BLM 

management review to ensure consistency with 

laws and regulations

Based on public comments the following 

changes were made to the Proposed Alternative:

In Section 2.6.2.2.3.1 Backcountry 

Byways were deleted

Outstanding Natural Areas (ONA) were

deleted from Proposed Alternative

Deleted enhance from ―enhance and/or 

maintain wilderness characteristics‖ 

Phoenix Field Office (PFO) changed to 

Phoenix District (PD)

Wilderness characteristics acreage

reduced

In Chapter 3 Air Quality section was 

updated

Chapter 4 was edited to reflect the 

impacts from inclusion of the Lower 

Gila Amendment to Alternative A and 

changes made to the Preferred 

(Proposed Alternative). Additionally, 

Chapter 4 was edited to remove 

inconsistencies with text in Chapter 2 

(impacts described from route closures 

outside the national monument were 

eliminated).

Table 2.8 was revised to reflect current 

content of the impact analysis

Added appendices R-Lands 

Management, S-Benefits Based 

Recreation, T-Off-Highway Vehicle 

Mitigation Examples, V-Additional 

information for the Black Canyon 

Utility Corridor, and U-Special Status 

Species. 

Section 2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty, added 

additional land tenure adjustments 

comments. 

Section 2.2.2.4 Biological Resources, 

added comments referencing big horn 

sheep lambing areas with fencing and 

monitor livestock use of these key areas, 

livestock and burros at dirt tanks, 

firewood management, and desert 

tortoise.

Changes were made in 2.2.2.6, 

Recreation Resources; a Special 

Recreation Management Area would be 

allocated for the Vulture Mountains. 

Special Resources Management 

Vision statements were added to the 

following sections: 2.3.2.2.1; 2.3.2.2.3;

2.3.2.2.5; 2.4.2.2.2; 2.4.2.2.4; 2.4.2.2.6; 

2.5.2.2.2; 2.5.2.2.4; and 2.5.2.2.6.

In Section 2.6.1.1 Special Designations

the Bloody Basin Road is not being 

considered for designation as a Back 

Country Byway under Alternative E and 

Wild and Scenic River eligibility has

been addressed for Agua Fria tributaries.
Chapter 2

47

In Section 2.6.1.4, the Rollie site in the 

Agua Fria NM was changed from a 

High Public Use area to a Moderate 

Public Use area. An error on Map 2-73 

in the Draft RMP/EIS, which identified 

the Teskey Homestead Public Use area 

as proposed for the Moderate Public Use 

level, was corrected to indicate an 

allocation to High Public Use. 

In the Biological Resources sections 

new text has been added.

Section 2.7.1.4 new text has been added 

to Administrative Actions-Gila 

Topminnow, Gila Chub and Desert 

Pupfish.

Section 2.7.1.11 new text has been 

added to Recreation Settings; Primitive, 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized, and 

Semi-primitive Motorized.

Section 2.7.3.1 Management Units has 

been deleted and renamed Special 

Designations, all sections following 

have new section numbers.

Section 2.7.3.7 Travel Management –

Management Actions has new text 

added.

Section 2.10.2 Monitoring has new text

added.

Section 2.13 Interrelationships has new 

text added.

Added Section 4.25 Mitigation for 

Effects of Routes and Appendix W 

containing information on proposed 

management of motorized travel in the 

Agua Fria National Monument. 

The following changes were made but are not 

substantial:

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative) 

would adjust the boundary of the Black 

Canyon corridor as shown on Map 2-

79.

In Alternative A (No Action) the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

is managed in accordance with the 

Phoenix RMP (BLM 1988a) as 

amended in the Approved Amendment 

to the Lower Gila North Management 

Framework Plan and the Lower Gila 

South Resource Management Plan 

(BLM 2005) and the Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan 

(MFP) (BLM 1983).

2.2 Alternative A 

(Current 

Management)

Current management or the No-Action 

Alternative for each planning area describes the 

management decisions within existing 

management plans that would continue if no 

new decisions were made to alter them.

2.2.1 Agua Fria National 

Monument

BLM prepared an interim management policy 

for newly designated BLM national monuments 

(Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-008) 

following the signing of Proclamation 7263 

(Appendix A) on January 11, 2000. In general, 

actions that are not precluded by the 

proclamation and do not conflict with 

the purposes of the monument may continue.

Allowed activities can be restricted only under 

the following general conditions: 

1. BLM, through processes required 

by law, recognizes places where such 

uses should be restricted or prohibited to 

protect the Federal lands and resources, 

including the objects protected by the 

monument designation; or 

2. BLM finds a clear threat from such a 

use to the Federal lands and resources, 

including the objects protected by the 

monument designation, and the 

circumstances call for swift protective 

action.

In May 2002, BLM released the Agua Fria 

National Monument Current Management 

Guidance (BLM 2002). This document is 
Chapter 2

48

consistent with the Monument Proclamation and 

the Interim Management Policy for BLM's 

National Monuments and National Conservation 

Areas (NCAs) (Instruction Memorandum 2002-

008) (BLM 2001a). The guidance describes the 

following by resource: 

Management decisions that conform 

to existing management plans and may 

be implemented. 

Decisions that do not conform to these 

plans and may not be implemented. 

Decisions that require further 

consideration and are analyzed within 

this RMP/EIS.

This guidance gives BLM the direction 

necessary to inform the public about ongoing 

uses and activities acceptable within 

the monument. The Current Management 

Guidance is a temporary document that will be 

replaced by the RMP developed through this 

planning process. The guidance includes the 

valid decisions and management actions brought 

forward from planning documents in use at the 

time of the proclamation. These documents 

include the following:

Phoenix Resource Management Plan 

(BLM 1988a). 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (BLM 1997).

Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Legislative Environmental 

Impact Statement (BLM 1994b). 

Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan 

Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air 

quality Management (BLM 2004).

Statewide Plan Amendment of Land-Use 

Plans in Arizona for Implementation of 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (BLM 1997b). 

Several activity plans have been developed for 

the area that is now within the Agua Fria 

National Monument. They formulate more 

detailed decisions than the plans listed above 

and, where they are not in conflict with 

decisions made in this new plan will continue to 

be valid. Any decisions from the following 

plans listed in this document are implementation 

level decisions.

Black Canyon Habitat Management 

Plan (revised) (BLM 1993b). 

Black Canyon Tobosa Grassland 

Prescribed Burn Environmental 

Analysis (BLM 1993c). 

Coordinated RMP for the Horseshoe 

Ranch Grazing Allotment (BLM 1998). 

Following are the management decisions from 

existing plans and guidance documents that are 

relevant to Agua Fria National Monument.

2.2.1.1 Special Designations

Under Alternative A, two ACECs and suitable 

wild and scenic river segments would remain 

under current management. These areas are 

listed below and shown in Map 2-2. In addition 

to the special designations, the map shows the 

location of the Perry Mesa National Register 

District, which extends onto the Tonto National 

Forest and is listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Larry Canyon ACEC (80 acres)

Management Actions

Close to motorized vehicles (there are no 

motorized routes within this ACEC).

Prohibit livestock grazing.

Prohibit Land Use Authorizations.

Withdraw 80 acres from Mineral Entry.

Prohibit surface occupancy for oil and gas 

development.
Chapter 2

49

Perry Mesa ACEC (9,580 acres)

Management Actions

Limit motorized vehicles to designated roads 

and trails.

Acquire 8,484 acres of State and private lands.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Nearly the entire length of the Agua Fria River 

within the monument, totaling 22.4 miles in 

three segments, has been determined as suitable 

for designation to the national Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. The upper segment, from 

Sycamore Creek to Bloody Basin Road, is 7.7 

miles long and classified as scenic (largely 

undeveloped but crossed by roads). The middle 

segment, including 10.3 miles dominated by the 

river‘s deep canyon, is classified as wild for its 

primitive character and lack of development. 

The lower segment, from an existing well and 

pump house to Larry Canyon, is 4.4 miles long 

and classified as scenic.

Following the guidance in BLM Manual 8351, 

until Congress makes a decision regarding 

designation, these river segments will be 

managed to protect the outstandingly remarkable 

wildlife, scenic, and cultural values that define 

their suitability for wild and scenic designation. 

Management actions will apply to the 20.8 river 

miles on public lands. 

No new roads, or other facilities that would 

damage the primitive character, will be 

permitted in river areas classified as wild. 

Motorized travel could be restricted in areas 

classified as scenic, if necessary to protect 

outstandingly remarkable values. Routes in 

scenic areas should be inconspicuous and wellscreened to maintain the scenic and natural 

character of these areas. 

The river will be maintained in free-flowing 

condition without impoundments or diversions.

Instream flows will be monitored to determine 

the minimum flows necessary to sustain the river 

values. Protective actions can include measures 

taken to sustain flows and improve water 

quality. 

2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

All lands and interests in lands within Agua Fria 

National Monument would be retained in 

Federal public ownership. The RMP evaluates 

the opportunities for acquiring non-Federal lands 

within or next to the monument that could 

protect or enhance management of monument 

resources. Any acquired lands and interests 

within the monument's boundary would be 

added to the monument.

Federal lands and interests in lands within the 

monument are withdrawn from all new forms of 

entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other 

disposition under the public land laws, including 

the mineral leasing and mining laws. 

Utility and Transportation Corridors and 

Communication Sites

Existing right-of-way corridors from previous 

plans would be modified, removed, or remain 

the same (Map 2-3). No new or widened 

transportation corridors would be designated 

within the monument. 

Existing utility rights-of-way in the 

monument would be modified, terminated, 

or maintained in accordance with valid existing 

rights, as defined in BLM's agreements with 

utility providers for as long as the demand exists 

for the utility. New rights-of-way might be 

permitted within existing rights-of-way, and 

where site-specific National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) analysis determines that 

impacts would be negligible on the values for 

which the monument was designated. 

Maintaining existing facilities would 

be permitted, subject to compliance with current 

policies and practices, provided that monument 

resources are protected.
Chapter 2

50

Applications for rights-of-way or ancillary 

public facilities will be evaluated and 

processed under existing policies and practices, 

and as needed, for access to private inholdings, 

public facilities, or administrative sites.

BLM may consider applications for new 

facilities if they determine that such facilities 

will protect or enhance monument resources.

Land Use Authorizations

Any land use authorizations, would be 

managed in accordance with valid existing rights 

granted before the monument was designated.

Land use authorizations will be evaluated to 

ensure compatibility with protecting monument 

resources. Some authorizations may be allowed 

to continue if they are not precluded by the 

proclamation and do not conflict with monument 

resource management objectives. Applications, 

proposals, and future use requests that were 

pending when the monument was created, are 

subject to the terms of the proclamation, 

including its recognition of valid existing rights 

and other management directives and 

decisions for the monument. Maintaining 

existing facilities would be permitted, subject to 

compliance with current policies and practices, 

provided that monument resources are protected.

2.2.1.3 Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Soil cover and productivity would be maintained 

or improved through erosion prevention and 

land treatments.

Activity plans for maintaining or promoting 

appropriate ground cover would be 

implemented. These plans would provide for 

infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, 

and soil stability suitable for ecological sites. 

Watershed improvement projects would be 

implemented to increase ground cover and 

reduce erosion.

BLM would ensure that mitigation is considered 

during project planning to prevent or reduce 

impacts to air quality.

Water rights, subject to valid existing 

rights, would be reserved in an amount sufficient 

to fulfill the purpose for which the monument 

was established. BLM's management actions to 

protect water resources would include the 

following:

Implementing activity plans to maintain 

and enhance stream flows. 

Developing activity plans to ensure that 

all water meets or exceeds Federal and 

State water quality standards. 

Reducing impacts to water 

quality by implementing 

mitigation measures during project 

construction. 

2.2.1.4 Biological Resources

The following decisions relative to management 

of biological resources were extracted from 

current planning documents:

Improve the Agua Fria River riparian 

corridor. 

Implement grazing management 

practices that protect wildlife species 

and their habitats, in accordance with 

1997 Arizona Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (Land Health Standards) 

Continue to transplant native fish 

species into suitable sites. 

Modify fences to allow wildlife 

movement. 

Develop new water sources. 

Conduct prescribed burns to restore 

native grasses and improve pronghorn 

habitat. 

Use native species when restoring or 

rehabilitating disturbed or degraded 

rangelands. Non-native plants may be 

used under limited circumstances in 

accordance with the Land Health 

Standards and Guidelines. 
Chapter 2

51

Modify existing agreements with the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) animal damage 

control, specifically targeting individual 

predators rather than predator 

populations. 

Coordinate with AGFD on hunting and 

fishing policies to ensure public 

safety, especially if there are areas of 

increased visitor use.

Continue existing noxious weed 

control. Exotic species would not be 

introduced unless doing so is 

essential for controlling noxious weeds 

or other undesirable species.

Plant cottonwood and willow along the 

Agua Fria River and its tributaries. 

Prohibit firewood collection where it 

might affect wildlife habitat. 

Acknowledge that scientific 

investigations are important to 

increasing our understanding of 

monument resources. However, 

investigations should avoid surface 

disturbance.

Prohibit vegetation chaining and other 

vegetation manipulation methods that 

cause substantial surface disturbance. 

The following Biological Opinions and 

Conference Opinions address endangered 

species management within the planning areas:

[2-21-88-F-167] The Phoenix Resource 

Management Plan/EIS. 

[2-21-96-F-421] The Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan (1983), 

and Lower Gila North Grazing EIS. 

[2-21-96-F-422] The Eastern Arizona 

Grazing EIS, Phoenix District Portion. 

[2-21-99-F-031] Reintroduction of Gila 

Topminnow and Desert Pupfish into 

Three Tributaries of the Agua Fria 

River. 

[2-21-03-C-409] Existing Phoenix 

Resource Management Plan for the 

Agua Fria National Monument. 

2.2.1.5 Cultural Resources

BLM would continue to coordinate with Tonto 

National Forest in managing cultural resources 

in the Perry Mesa National Register District, 

which encompasses the areas of Perry Mesa 

(including the significant archaeological 

sites in Perry Mesa ACEC), Black Mesa, and the 

Agua Fria River Canyon. The boundaries of the 

Perry Mesa National Register District and Perry 

Mesa ACEC are shown in Map 2-2. 

BLM would coordinate with State Government, 

tribes, and other governmental entities (under 

existing agreements and any new arrangements 

deemed necessary) to disseminate and exchange 

information and cooperate in management 

actions consistent with legal authorities and 

other directives that guide BLM.

Current interim management guidance 

acknowledges that, although scientific, 

archaeological, and historical investigations are 

important to increasing our understanding of 

monument resources, surface disturbance should 

be avoided.

BLM would implement protective actions, 

including placing signs and barriers at sites and 

repairing vandalism-caused damage at sites.

Professional and avocational archaeologists 

would continue to conduct resource inventories 

and site recordings with BLM's approval.

2.2.1.6 Paleontological 

Resources

No significant paleontological resources 

are known to exist within the monument. Any 

newly found resources would be managed under 

existing BLM's policies and guidance.

2.2.1.7 Recreation Resources

Suitable signs would be placed at the 

monument's boundaries and other relevant 

information would be posted as needed. BLM 
Chapter 2

52

would initiate actions to interpret the 

monument's resources and provide 

environmental education to visitors on important 

topics (e.g. visitor safety and resource 

protection). Management discretion would be 

exercised, when needed, through emergency 

closures or other actions to protect the 

monument's resources. 

Current recreation uses would continue, to 

include hiking, target shooting, viewing 

prehistoric sites, and dispersed recreational 

camping (with a 14-day limit). Collecting any 

objects, including fossils, rock specimens, and 

archaeological artifacts would be allowed by 

permit only for legitimate scientific uses 

documented by BLM.

2.2.1.8 Visual Resources

No Visual Resource Management allocations 

were made in previous planning documents. In 

the absence of VRM standards established 

through planning, VRM Class III standards have 

been applied throughout the planning area.

2.2.1.9 Rangeland Management

Land Use Allocation

Where applicable, livestock grazing would 

be permitted within the national monument, 

pursuant to the terms of existing permits and 

leases. There are currently 11 grazing leases 

on 10 range allotments.

Livestock grazing would be prohibited in the 

Larry Canyon ACEC (Map 2-2). 

Desired Future Condition 

In the monument (as in all properly managed 

grazing pastures), proper grazing management 

practices are followed to protect diverse and 

productive plant communities and the proper 

functioning condition of riparian areas.

Watersheds are in properly functioning 

conditions, including their upland, riparian, and 

aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions 

support infiltration, storage, and release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform.

Ecological processes are maintained to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities.

Management Actions

New water sources might be developed if 

monitoring or other data reveal a need.

Fence construction and maintenance will follow 

guidance provided in BLM's Handbook for 

Fencing H-1741.

All previous versions of the grazing 

administration regulations have been succeeded 

by the Department of the Interior‘s Final Rule 

for Grazing Administration, issued in 1995, 

which requires implementing standards and 

guidelines to achieve the fundamentals of 

rangeland health. The Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (BLM 1997a) (discussed 

in Sections 2.7.1.1 Land Health Standards and 

2.7.1.9 Rangeland Management of Management 

Common to All Action Alternatives of this 

chapter) were completed in 1997.

2.2.1.10 Mineral Resource 

Management

All Federal minerals would remain withdrawn 

from all forms of location, sale, or leasing, 

including withdrawal from the following: 

Location, entry, and patent under the 

mining laws. 

Disposition under all laws relating to 

mineral and geothermal leasing. 

Disposal under the Mineral Materials 

Act. 

Mineral interests may be exchanged if the 

exchange furthers the protective purposes of the 

monument. Any mineral interests acquired by 

the United States within the monument would be 
Chapter 2

53

reserved as part of the monument and would be 

subject to the withdrawals listed here.

For lands encumbered by mining claims, no 

activity beyond casual use, as defined in 43 

CFR 3809, would be allowed without a 

determination of valid existing rights.

2.2.1.11 Fire Management

Prescribed burning would continue to 

be conducted on the national monument to 

achieve the following:

Eliminate invasive species. 

Reduce the abundance of woody 

species. 

Restore and increase production of 

native grasses. 

Increase the production and vigor of 

perennial grasses, annual grasses, and 

forbs. 

Improve pronghorn antelope habitat. 

Full suppression of wildfires would continue in 

the monument.

2.2.1.12 Resource Conservation 

Areas and Multiple Resource 

Management Areas

One RCA and two MRMAs would remain under 

current management under Alternative A. These 

areas are listed below, with applicable 

management decisions, and shown on Map 2-4.

Black Canyon RCA (115,650 acres). 

Cordes Junction MRMA (10,810 

acres) - An activity plan would be 

developed; surface occupancy of oil and 

gas leases would be prohibited in 

riparian zones; land use authorizations 

would be prohibited in riparian areas; 

motorized vehicles would be limited to 

existing roads and trails; and non-BLM 

land would be acquired. 

Sycamore Creek MRMA (3,820 

acres) - An activity plan would be 

developed; surface occupancy of oil 

and gas leases would be prohibited in 

riparian zones; land use 

authorizations would be prohibited in 

riparian areas; motorized vehicles 

would be limited to existing roads 

and trails; and non-BLM land would 

be acquired. 

2.2.1.13 Travel Management

Consistent with Proclamation 7263 (Appendix 

A) and the Purpose and Significance of Agua 

Fria National Monument, all motorized and 

mechanized vehicle use off road will be 

prohibited, except for authorized administrative 

and emergency purposes. Motorized and 

mechanical vehicular uses would be limited to 

existing or designated routes (Map 2-11).

Larry Canyon ACEC (80 acres) would be closed 

to motorized vehicles. 

Perry Mesa ACEC (9,580 acres) would limit 

motorized vehicles to designated roads and 

trails. 

2.2.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area is 

managed in accordance with the Phoenix RMP 

(BLM 1988a) as amended in the Approved 

Amendment to the Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan and the Lower 

Gila South Resource Management Plan (BLM 

2005) and the Lower Gila North Management 

Framework Plan (MFP) (BLM 1983).

Additionally, management decisions in the 

Kingman RMP (BLM 1993a) and the Phoenix 

RMP cover the scattered parcels that are 

addressed in this planning effort but are located 

outside the planning area.

The Phoenix RMP divided the planning area into 

smaller management units, each with a particular 

management focus. Cooperative Recreation 

Management Areas (CRMAs) had significant 
Chapter 2

54

recreation values and were recognized by county 

and State Governments as important areas for 

intensive recreation uses. Resource 

Conservation Areas (RCAs) were developed to 

consolidate public lands by acquiring State and 

private parcels with resources that would benefit 

from public owners. Multiple Resource 

Management Areas (MRMAs) were managed 

with an emphasis on balancing the use of several 

resources, including grazing, recreation, and 

biological and cultural resources.

The following are the management decisions 

from the three plans that are relevant to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area:

2.2.2.1 Special Designations

Under Alternative A, five wilderness areas and 

one back country byway would remain under

current management. These areas and byway 

are listed below. 

Big Horn Mountains Wilderness -

21,000 acres. 

Harquahala Mountains Wilderness -

22,880 acres. 

Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness -

11,840 acres. 

Hells Canyon Wilderness - 9,900 acres. 

Hummingbird Springs Wilderness -

31,200 acres. 

Harquahala Mountain Summit Back 

Country Byway. 

The wilderness areas are shown on Map 1-1 and 

the back country byway is shown on Map 2-5. 

2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

All public land that has been found to 

be potentially suitable for disposal (Map 2-6) 

(check map against the Lower Gila Amendment 

to verify available parcels) by sale meets the 

criteria in Section 203 (a) (1) of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA). The section states, "...such tract 

because of its location or other characteristic is 

difficult and uneconomical to manage as part of 

the public lands and is not suitable for 

management by another Federal department or 

agency." These lands would be disposed of at

fair market value, excluding lands that would be 

disposed to local governments under the 

Recreation and Public Purpose Act (R&PPA).

Lands which are potentially suitable for disposal 

will be subject to valid existing rights. A total 

of 54,370 acres have been found to 

be potentially suitable for disposal.

Other land tenure adjustments include the 

following:

Retain public lands (surface and 

subsurface estate) in the Black Canyon 

and the Lake Pleasant RCAs. 

Consolidate public ownership and 

intensively manage lands in these two 

RCAs. 

Pursue acquisition of all State land in 

the two RCAs on a case-by-case basis. 

Acquire through exchange any nonFederal mineral estate underlying 

Federal surface holdings in the two 

RCAs. 

Acquire up to 29,360 acres of State land 

and 2,140 acres of private land in the 

Lake Pleasant Cultural Resource 

Management Area. 

Acquire up to 5,846 acres of State and 

private lands in the Cordes Junction 

MRMA. 

Acquire up to 39,433 acres of State and 

private lands in the Bumble Bee 

MRMA. 

Acquire up to 23,346 acres of State and 

private lands in the Williams Mesa 

MRMA. 

Acquire State land along 4 miles of the 

Hassayampa River in the Hassayampa 

River Riparian Management Area 

(RMA). 

Acquire up to 23,388 acres of State and 

private lands in the Lake Pleasant Burro 

Herd Management Area (HMA).

Acknowledge that the State indemnity 

selection process has been completed.

Lands identified in the RMP are no 
Chapter 2

55

longer eligible for exchange in that 

process but may still be open 

to exchange through other actions with 

the State or with private entities.

Identify for disposal all subsurface 

mineral estate underlying Federal 

surface designated for disposal outside 

the two RCAs and the Cultural Resource 

Management Areas. 

Recommend lands for disposal. 

Change from retention to disposal the 

parcel in the northern half of T11N, 

R3E, Section 17. 

Continue to dispose of federal 

subsurface estate under non-Federal

surface estate on a case-by-case basis.

Continue to acquire non-Federal

subsurface estate under federal surface 

estate on a case-by-case basis.

Public lands in the Gila Bend 

Management Area adjacent to the White 

Tanks County Regional Park, described 

as T. 2 N., R. 3 W., sections 

4,5,8,9,14,15,17 through 22, 26 through 

29, and 33 through 35; T. 2 N., R. 4 W., 

section 1; and T. 3 N., R. 4 W., sections 

1,11 through 14, 24,25, and 36 would be 

retained in federal ownership and would 

only be available for disposal to local or 

state governmental entities for 

recreation/park purposes.

Exchanges to re-position lands within all 

the management areas may occur if it 

has been determined that it would be in 

the public interest.

Lands identified for disposal may be 

retained if significant resource values 

are found during evaluation. The policy 

is not to dispose of lands occupied by 

proposed or listed threatened or 

endangered species. If other public uses 

outweigh the value of a parcel as 

federal-owned threatened or endangered 

species habitat, disposal could be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. If a 

listed or proposed threatened or 

endangered species would be affected 

by a land disposal action, consultation or 

conferencing with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service would be required. 

Exchange for other parcels of habitat 

would be encouraged. Compensation 

for loss of habitat value would be 

required where such a policy exists. 

Other mitigation may also be required. 

These determinations would be made 

during preparation of the site-specific 

environmental assessments required for 

every disposal action. Environmental 

documentation must be in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act prior to the approval of any lands 

action.

Lands not listed or identified for specific 

purposes would be retained in public 

ownership unless needed for recreation 

or public purposes. Such disposal 

proposals on lands not identified for 

disposal would be considered on a caseby-case basis.

All non-Federal lands with high 

resource values within the boundaries of 

the management areas may be 

considered for acquisition. Acquisitions 

would occur primarily through the land 

exchange process in accordance with 43 

CFR 2200 and the Federal Land 

Exchange Facilitation Act. Acquisition 

by donation and purchase using Land 

and Water Conservation Funds would 

also be considered when willing parties 

or available funds exist. All acquisitions 

would be negotiated with willing 

landowners only and must be in the 

public interest.

Utility and Transportation Corridors and 

Communication Sites

All major utilities would be routed through 

designated corridors (Map 2-7). Additionally, 

right-of-way permits would be issued to promote 

the greatest use of existing right-of-way routes, 

including joint use whenever possible.

Within the Black Canyon RCA, the Black 

Canyon utility corridor, designated by 

the Phoenix RMP (BLM 1988a), would be 

retained (Map 2-7). It is a multi-use utility and 

transportation corridor that includes the 

Interstate 17 right-of-way and other utility lines.
Chapter 2

56

The western portion of the corridor is 

located within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area.

The multiple-use corridors along existing rightsof-way designated in the Lower Gila North MFP

(BLM 1983) as amended (BLM 2005) (eight of 

which are within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area) would be retained, as shown in 

Table 2-1.

The withdrawal application that involves the 

Central Arizona Project with the Water and 

Power Resources Service (now the Bureau of 

Reclamation) would be reviewed. The 

withdrawal application should be changed to 

include only areas absolutely necessary for the 

project. Otherwise the withdrawal application 

should be lifted, and a right-of-way would 

be issued for the project.

Small utility distribution systems would 

continue to be developed on an as-needed basis 

throughout the planning area. These small 

distribution systems would include all uses such 

as electrical lines, gas and water pipelines, and 

access roads. These distribution systems would 

be authorized when consistent with 

environmental and land use considerations.

Whenever possible, communication sites would 

be placed on lands identified for disposal.

Development of communication facilities on 

land to be retained in public ownership would be 

limited to designated communication sites. The 

current designated communication sites are 

listed below and would be retained:

The 50-acre White Tanks 

Communication Site at T3N, R3W, 

Sections 27 and 28 that is located 

outside the RCAs. 

The repeater and microwave site on 

Harquahala Mountain in T6N, R10W 

Sections 31 and 32, or T6N, R11W 

Section 36, but restrict the development 

to one or two multi-user buildings. 

Land Use Authorizations

Continue to issue land use authorizations (rightsof-way, leases, permits, and easements) on a 

case-by-case basis and in accordance with 

decisions established in the Phoenix RMP (BLM 

1988a).

Continue to allow small utility distribution 

systems to be developed on an as-needed basis 

throughout the planning area. These small 

distribution systems would include all uses such 

as electrical lines, gas and water pipelines, and 

associated access roads. These small 

distribution systems would be authorized when 

consistent with environmental and land use 

considerations.

Prohibit land use authorizations in riparian areas 

in the Hassayampa River RMA and the Bumble 

Bee and Williams Mesa MRMAs.

2.2.2.3 Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

BLM would take the following measures:

Table 2-1. Use Corridors within Lower Gila 

North Planning Area

Corridor Name Width

a. Central Arizona 

Project (Granite Reef 

Aqueduct)

One mile

b. Wenden–

Wickenburg

One mile

c. Parker–Liberty Two miles

d. Mead–Phoenix Two miles

e. WickenburgYarnellOne mile

f. Palo Verde–Devers Two miles (restricted 

between Burnt Mountain 

and Big Horn Mountains)

g. Palo Verde–

Westwing

Two miles

h. El Paso Natural Gas

Company

Two miles (One mile at 

Bill Williams River 

crossing)
Chapter 2

57

Incorporate salinity control measures 

into erosion prevention strategies and 

rehabilitation treatments. 

Ensure the legal availability of water 

and maintain adequate flows in 

springs on BLM-administered lands 

within the Arrastre Creek, Antelope 

Creek, Weaver Creek, and Harquahala 

Mountains areas (now wilderness with 

Federal water rights).

Initiate strategies for assuring spring 

flows.

Maintain and enhance stream flows 

through activity plans in special 

management areas. 

2.2.2.4 Biological Resources

Design the development of springs and seeps, or 

other projects affecting water and associated 

resources, to protect ecological functions and 

processes.

Cooperate with the AGFD to acquire water 

rights to maintain or enhance spring and riparian 

habitats in the planning unit. Specific 

sites would be determined in a Habitat 

Management Plan (HMP) to achieve the goals 

stated in this plan.

Map 2-8 shows the distribution of desert night 

lizards, Arizona night lizards, and Sonoran 

Mountain king snakes. Use 43 CFR 3809 

(Surface Mining Regulations) to minimize 

habitat disturbance of these species during new 

road building associated with mining. New 

mining plans of operations would provide for 

closing new roads, when and where needed, to 

prevent recreation disturbance to night lizard 

and king snake habitats. Wood collecting would 

be limited in the Weaver Mountains, particularly 

along Antelope, Weaver, Arrastre, Cottonwood, 

and Yarnell Creeks.

Reduce the competition for cover, water, and 

space among big game, livestock, and burros 

by decreasing livestock aggregations and 

removing all burros at waters in the Big Horn, 

and Harquahala Mountains.

Bighorn sheep lambing areas and a 2-mile buffer 

zone (20,000 acres) in the Harquahala 

Mountains would be protected from habitat and 

behavioral disturbances resulting from (a) land 

disposal, (b) excess fencing, (c) structure 

building, (d) land clearing and wood cutting; (e) 

mining between December 15 and April 15 

(within the framework of 43 CFR 3809), (f) road 

building, (g) intense recreation use and 

development; (h) rights-of-way construction and 

maintenance, and (i) more than 40 percent 

utilization of key browse.

Significant cliffs, shown as Raptor Areas in Map 

2-5, and a 2-mile zone of influence in the Big 

Horn Mountains and the Vulture Mountains area 

would be protected from (a) land disposal, (b) 

excess fencing, (c) building of structures, (d) 

land clearing or removal of downed wood or 

wood cutting, (e) reducing or modifying mining 

activities to the extent possible under the 43 

CFR 3802 and 43 CFR 3809 mining regulations, 

(f) road building, (g) intense recreation use or 

development, (h) burro overuse, and (i) rightsof-way construction and maintenance. Special 

protection in these areas would be provided for 

disturbances resulting from human activities 

between February 1 and May 1 of each year.

Protection zones for golden eagle nests would 

not exceed 1⁄4-mile radius unless a special need 

for a larger protection zone is determined.

These zones would be created on a case-by-case 

basis.

Avoid subdividing big horn sheep lambing areas 

with fencing and monitor livestock use of these 

key areas. Negotiate with range user to alleviate 

competition where documented. This would be 

done by change in season of use or by instituting 

a grazing system to rest lambing areas during 

critical lambing season (January through May). 

Cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department to allow reintroduction of big horn 

sheep into the Weaver Mountains and allocate 

forage to the big horn‘s reasonable population 

level one year before reintroduction. 
Chapter 2

58

The Arizona Game and Fish Department, in 

cooperation with the Phoenix District, may use 

re-establishment and augmentation to assist 

desert bighorn sheep populations in reaching 

their natural potential. Re-establishment and 

augmentation of desert bighorn sheep 

populations would be done in areas where 

conflicts with other uses and resources do not 

occur, or where conflicts can be resolved. Final 

decisions on re-establishment and augmentation 

proposals would be considered on a case-bycase basis within the appropriate level of 

National Environmental Policy Act 

documentation that addresses conflicts and 

meets the requirement for public participation.

Decrease cattle densities in big horn habitat to 

relieve competition between big horn sheep and 

livestock for space, water, and browse. Graze 

domestic sheep as far from big horn habitat as 

possible to decrease big horn disease vectors. 

The significant botanical areas in Arrastre Creek 

(650), Antelope Creek (600 acres), Weaver 

Creek (150 acres), and the Harquahala 

Mountains (7,000 acres) would be protected 

from habitat disturbances resulting from (a) 

building of structures, (b) land clearing, (c) 

mining, (d) road building, and (e) building and 

maintaining rights-of-way. A grazing system 

that would prevent intensive livestock use of 

riparian habitat would be implemented.

Prior to spring development, evaluate for 

clearance any planned spring development to 

avoid elimination of endemic snails.

Cooperate with Arizona Game and Fish 

Department to develop big game water 

catchments on public land at sites designated in 

the Lower Gila North Habitat Management Plan. 

Construction of the facilities would depend on 

availability of funding.

Establish cottonwood and willow regeneration 

around significant springs through supplemental 

planting and protection from livestock 

utilization. Significant springs include: 

Hackberry Springs, Weaver Mountain Springs. 

Monitor selected aquatic habitat in cooperation 

with Arizona Game and Fish Department, State 

Health Services, and Environmental Protection 

Agency where water pollution is a problem to 

ensure that water quality meets appropriate 

federal and state standards. Improve conditions 

that do not meet these standards.

Establish broadleaf tree reproduction and 

perpetuation via supplemental planting of 

seedlings in existing and potentially suitable 

riparian habitat

Allotments, not managed intensively but 

possessing small tracts of riparian habitat, would 

be monitored and managed through Habitat 

Management Plans.

Provide wildlife safe access and year-round 

water at livestock waters on public lands and 

cooperate with allottees to develop similar 

considerations on private lands.

Develop small and upland game waters in 11 

areas.

Use the very important browse species as ―key 

species‖ in developing objectives and in 

monitoring grazing allotments‘ activity plans 

(those species receiving importance factors 

greater than 7.0 in Ough and Miller 1980: 65-

133. Key browse species would include one or 

more of the following: Cercoparpus montanus, 

Atriplex canescens, Ceanothus greffii, Ephedra 

fasciculata, Populus fremonti, Simmondsia 

chinensis, Brickellia coulteri, Calliandra 

eriophylla, Eriogonum sp., Krameria gravii, 

Janusia gracilis.

Exclude livestock and burros at the following 

dirt tanks (75 acres) to enhance waterfowl and 

long-eared owl nesting opportunities: a) Special 

Habitat Feature (SHF) #95-Lone Mountain 

Tank; b) SHF #132-Mitchell Tank; c) SHF 

#150-Unnamed; and d) SHF #158-Unnamed. 

Develop a fire management program for all 

cottonwood-willow riparian, mixed broadleaf 

riparian, and mesquite-salt cedar woodlands.

As Allotment Management Plans are written for 

allotments containing crucial desert tortoise 
Chapter 2

59

habitat, the recommendation to rest tortoise 

habitat from livestock use between February and 

July would be incorporated into the grazing 

systems. Implementation of intensive 

management on allotments would occur as per 

WL-2.6. Allotments which do not receive 

intensive management would be monitored as to 

livestock use. Adjustments in use would be 

made by changing seasons of use or number of 

livestock. Fencing out entire tortoise 

populations may be done, but only after contact 

with interested user groups.

Monitor the effects of livestock grazing on 

different range sites in open chaparral and 

cottonwood willow SHSs. Exclosures of 

varying sizes would be constructed. Size would 

depend on area needed for the purpose. 

Develop a Fire Management Plan for Lower 

Gila North which incorporates protection for 

sensitive riparian habitats and Lower Sonoran 

habitats, establishes a mechanism for 

rehabilitation of riparian habitats, and 

establishes cover ―level‖ strips in open and 

closed chaparral habitats.

The Harquahala Mountains would not be 

designated as an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC). An allotment Management 

Plan would be developed to protect this area 

from overgrazing. All other users or 

developments incompatible with the protection 

of this area would be restricted to the extent 

possible under existing regulations. 

Control intensity and season of use by livestock 

on the Harcuvar and Harquahala mountains open 

chaparral SHSs 

Develop a controlled (prescribed) burn plan to 

improve open chaparral habitat in the Harcuvar 

Mountains and, if not visually impacting, the 

Harquahala Mountains.

Continue to place wildlife escape ramps in water 

troughs and construct or maintain new wildlife 

waters in coordination with state and other 

federal agencies.

New livestock waters to be located within two 

miles from crucial tortoise habitat and/or crucial 

desert bighorn sheep habitat would be analyzed 

on a case-by-case basis to determine potential 

impacts. Significant impacts would be mitigated 

with appropriate stipulations on site selection.

Before installing facilities, BLM would conduct 

a site evaluation for state-protected animals and 

develop mitigation to protect these species and 

their habitats. Such mitigation might include 

project relocation, redesign, or abandonment.

During construction of rangeland developments, 

vehicles would use existing roads and trails 

wherever possible for access to sites. Where 

feasible or where no roads exist, vehicles would 

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; BLM specifications would also 

be used to reduce erosion and gulling.

During construction of all rangeland 

developments, surface resources would be 

disturbed as little as possible. After 

construction, disturbed surfaces would be 

restored to a natural condition as far as is 

practicable.

Fences proposed in big game habitat would be 

designed to reduce adverse impacts to big game 

movement. Specifications in BLM Manual 1737 

and in local BLM directives would be used. 

BLM would consult with the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department on the design and location of 

new fences.

Where existing fences in big game habitat do not 

meet BLM specifications, they would be 

modified according to BLM Manual 1737 when 

they are scheduled for replacement or major 

maintenance.

As a general practice, new roads would not be 

bladed for use in fence construction. Vehicles 

would travel overland, or fences would be built 

by hand.

All livestock waters would provide safe, usable 

water for wildlife. As funding and opportunities 
Chapter 2

60

permit, existing facilities would be modified for 

safe wildlife use. The following standards apply 

to design and modification of livestock waters.

The above-ground height of livestock 

troughs and tanks would not exceed 20 

inches. BLM would install wildlife escape 

ladders in each facility and provide ramps 

for small bird and mammal access. Storage 

tanks would have either a metal or floating 

vinyl cover to reduce evaporation and 

prevent wildlife from drowning.

Ground-level wildlife water developments 

would be established on livestock waters 

where feasible. An exclosure 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 0.25 miles outside of the fenced 

exclosure.

Developed spring storage and adjacent 

riparian habitat would be fenced to exclude 

livestock.

Where practical, water troughs and tanks 

would be kept full year-round to provide a 

continuous water supply for wildlife.

The MFP and RMP planning areas have been 

inventoried for desert tortoise habitat and habitat 

categories have been established (Map 4-92). 

These boundaries may be slightly altered as new 

and better information becomes available on 

population distributions and dynamics.

Three one-square-mile study plots in the 

Harcuvar, and Harquahala mountains would be 

read every five years to monitor desert tortoise 

populations and habitat.

Environmental decision documents for all 

actions occurring in desert tortoise habitat would 

address and include mitigation measures 

sufficient to offset, to the extent possible, any 

loss of tortoise habitat quantity or quality in 

category I, II, and III habitats.

New land uses would be granted in category I, 

II, and III tortoise habitats only if no reasonable 

alternative exists. If no alternative exists, 

mitigation, including compensation, would be 

evaluated to meet the no net loss goal.

Competitive off-highway-vehicle race courses 

would be prohibited in category I desert tortoise 

habitat.

Competitive off-highway-vehicle race courses 

would not be located in category II desert 

tortoise habitat unless no reasonable alternative 

site exists. If no reasonable alternative site 

exists, impacts would be fully mitigated.

Competitive off-highway-vehicle race courses 

would be evaluated in category III desert tortoise 

habitat and impacts would be mitigated.

Categorized desert tortoise habitat would be 

reviewed in relation to ongoing livestock use on 

public lands in the MFP and RMP planning 

areas; forage needs of desert tortoise and 

ecological site potential would be considered in 

determining and prioritizing the resolution of 

conflicts.

In category I and II desert tortoise habitat, only 

those range improvements for livestock that do 

not conflict with desert tortoise habitat or 

populations would be allowed.

New wildlife improvements would be allowed in 

category I and II desert tortoise habitats only if 

there would be no conflict with desert tortoise 

populations or habitat.

The Phoenix District would use the BLM‘s 

discretionary authorities relating to leasable and 

salable minerals to meet the desert tortoise 

habitat category goals and objectives.

Boulder sale permits would be restricted to areas 

that would result in no net loss of tortoise 

habitat.

2.2.2.5 Cultural Resources

Reduce or eliminate indirect impacts from land 

uses on cultural resources as identified through 

study plots.
Chapter 2

61

Select cultural resources for allocation through 

inventory for scientific uses.

Conserve for future use a representative sample 

of site types in the planning area.

2.2.2.6 Recreation Resources

CRMAs would be jointly developed in master 

plans between BLM and cooperating agencies.

Within the current planning area, CRMAs 

would include Lake Pleasant and the Black 

Canyon Trail.

BLM would continue to protect and interpret the 

Harquahala Peak observatory site.

An interpretive corridor would be established 

with signing along the Stanton-Octave-Yarnell 

Road. This drive offers interesting views of an 

undeveloped landscape, natural features, and 

historical sites. The signing would begin at the 

Stanton-Octave turnoff from Highway 89, east 

to Stanton and then north to Yarnell (T10N, 

R5W, Sec. 30). Signing would include the 

identification of historical events, creeks, 

geologic features, and botanic values.

Directional signing would be incorporated into 

the recommended interpretive corridor.

A Special Recreation Management Area would 

be allocated for the Vulture Mountains. 

Interdisciplinary planning, including public 

involvement, would be completed for all special 

recreation management areas to establish 

boundaries, type and level of facility 

development, resolve and mitigate impacts to 

other resources, evaluate and refine existing 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Visual 

Resource Management classes, improve 

recreational opportunities, and reduce conflicts 

among public land users. The Vulture 

Mountains Special Recreation Management 

Area, to include lands surrounding Vulture Peak, 

the Vulture Mine, and the Vulture Mountains, 

would be established to emphasize diverse 

recreational opportunities including trails, 

natural and historic interpretation, camping, and 

off-highway and special recreation vehicle use 

areas.

Facilities and maintenance to protect 

resource values and improve visitor 

safety and recreational opportunities 

would be authorized.

Single-use and multiple-use trails to 

meet the demand for hiking, 

equestrian, and mountain biking 

opportunities would be developed.

Signing, regulations, and brochures 

would be provided as needed.

Areas not allocated to a special Recreation 

Management Area would be allocated as an 

Extensive Recreation Management Area. 

Project level planning for the extensive 

recreation management area would be conducted 

on a case-by-case basis.

Primitive facilities would be 

authorized where needed for resource 

protection, visitor safety, improvement 

of the recreation experience, or 

increasing recreational opportunities.

Camping locations, camping stay 

limits, off-highway and special 

recreation vehicle use, and utilization 

of the existing natural resources would 

be established.

Long- and short-term camping areas, 

commercial or competitive offhighway and special recreation vehicle 

use areas, scenic turnouts, cultural 

interpretive sites, hiking, equestrian or 

mountain bike trails, road and portal 

signage, and road maintenance would 

be evaluated.

A "designated routes only" offhighway and special vehicle 

classification would be established on 

a site-specific basis when needed for 

resource protection or to maintain 

consistency with Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum classifications.

Public lands in T. 10 N., R. 4 W., sec. 26 would 

be managed for their scenic values) to interpret 

the history, geology, and hazards to human 

safety of the area near the privately owned 

Placerita Mining Camp.
Chapter 2

62

Establish a hiking and horseback riding trail 

system near Wickenburg. The width and exact 

routing of the trail would be determined through 

a process of close consultation with the 

concerned public. Identify the trail by standard 

trail markers and install hazard warnings where 

needed) Work with the Desert Caballeros of 

Wickenburg to establish a trail system between 

Wickenburg and Wagoner to ensure continuous 

management on public lands.

Management of recreation opportunities and 

developments would be evaluated using the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Visual 

Resource Management.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classifications 

would be reviewed, refined, and adopted during 

interdisciplinary planning.

The existing 14-day camping stay limit and all 

associated policy would be maintained 

throughout the planning area unless otherwise 

designated by the authorized officer or through 

project planning. Areas may be closed for 

resource protection, rehabilitation, or to reduce 

conflicts with other uses.

Camping facilities and length-of-stay limits may 

be established as prescribed below for dispersed 

camping, long-term visitor areas, extended 

camping areas, and short-term camping areas.

Camping would be permitted on all public lands 

unless otherwise designated, closed, or restricted 

for resource protection.

Self-contained or vehicle-based camping would 

be permitted within 50 feet of the centerline of 

designated or existing routes. Cross-country 

travel to campsites would not be permitted.

Trailhead facilities would be closed to overnight 

camping upon written approval of the field 

manager.

Long-term visitor areas (LTVAs) would be 

defined on the ground with fences or signs. 

Each LTVA would include designated roads, 

designated campsites, and amenities to support 

long-term camping occupancy. The following 

resource factors would be considered for 

implementation and development of LTVAs:

Permitted only in rural or roaded-natural 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

classes.

Location on rocky or resilient soils.

Well-maintained ingress and egress 

routes.

Location within 30 miles of local 

community.

Location outside of category I or II 

desert tortoise habitat.

Mitigation if located in Category III 

desert tortoise habitat.

Location with no cultural resource 

conflicts.

Location outside of burro herd 

management areas.

Location of developments in a manner 

that "is not likely to adversely affect" 

threatened or endangered species and 

their habitats.

Location outside of riparian areas.

Location outside of areas of critical 

environmental concern and wild and 

scenic river areas.

The following operating rules would be 

considered for LTVA development and use:

Long-term camping would be restricted 

to the term of the permit.

Long-term camping would be restricted 

to designated sites.

Services may be provided by contract or 

local vendor, but the costs of services 

(firewood, sanitation, trash, water, etc.) 

would be the responsibility of each 

occupant.

Users would be required to comply with 

all other LTVA regulations.

LTVA users must comply with all local, 

state, and federal laws.

LTVA supplementary rules may be 

enacted as needed.

Other regulations and conditions for LTVA use 

would be identified as required during 
Chapter 2

63

interdisciplinary project planning. If, during the 

planning process, the interdisciplinary project 

planning team determines that modifications 

need to be made to the guidelines listed above 

those modifications may be made without the 

need for a planning amendment. Other 

regulations and conditions identified during 

ongoing operation of LTVAs would require 

public notification.

Extended camping areas would be defined on 

the ground with fences or signs. Each such area 

would include designated roads, designated 

campsites, and amenities to support extended 

camping occupancy.

Interdisciplinary planning would evaluate and 

authorize extended camping areas where historic 

use patterns equate to this type of use, and 

potential new areas are identified that would be 

suitable for extended camping. The following 

resource factors would be considered for 

implementation and development of extended 

camping areas:

Location only in rural, roaded-natural, 

or semi-primitive motorized Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum classes.

Topographic or vegetative screening.

Suitable ingress and egress routes.

Location on rocky or resilient soils.

Location within 30 miles of local 

community.

Location outside of Category I desert 

tortoise habitat.

Mitigation if located in category II or III 

desert tortoise habitat.

Location with no cultural resource 

conflicts.

Location outside of burro herd 

management areas.

Location in a manner that "is not likely 

to adversely affect" threatened or 

endangered species and their habitats.

Location outside of riparian areas.

Location outside of areas of critical 

environmental concern and wild and 

scenic river areas.

The following operating rules would be 

considered for extended camping area 

development and use:

Camping restricted to designated sites.

Services may be provided by contract or 

local vendor, but the costs of services 

(firewood, sanitation, trash, water, etc.) 

would be the responsibility of each 

occupant.

Extended camping area visitors must 

comply with all local, state, and federal 

laws.

Extended camping area supplementary 

rules may be enacted as needed.

Other regulations and conditions for extended 

camping area use would be identified as required 

during interdisciplinary project planning. If, 

during the planning process, the interdisciplinary 

project planning team determines that 

modifications need to be made to the guidelines 

listed above those modifications may be made 

without the need for a planning amendment. 

Other regulations and conditions identified 

during ongoing operation of extended camping 

areas would require public notification.

Short-term camping areas would be designated 

only where such use promotes resource 

protection and where all conflicts can be 

mitigated. Short-term camping areas would be 

defined on the ground with fences or signs. 

Interdisciplinary planning would evaluate shortterm camping areas where historic use patterns 

equate to this type of use, and potential new 

areas are identified that would be suitable for 

short-term camping. The following resource 

factors would be considered for implementation 

and development of short-term camping areas:

Primitive ingress and egress routes.

Location on rocky or resilient soils.

Mitigation if located in category I, II or 

III desert tortoise habitat.

Location with no cultural resource 

conflicts.

Location outside of burro herd 

management areas.
Chapter 2

64

Location of developments in a manner 

that "is not likely to adversely affect" 

threatened or endangered species and 

their habitats.

Location outside of wildernesses.

Location outside of areas of critical 

environmental concern and wild and 

scenic river areas.

The following operating rules would be 

considered for short-term camping area 

development and use:

Camping would be restricted to the 

terms and conditions of that 

campground.

Camping would be restricted to 

designated sites.

Services may be provided by contract or 

local vendor, but the costs of services 

(firewood, sanitation, trash, water, etc.) 

would be the responsibility of each 

occupant.

Camping area users must comply with 

all local, state and federal laws.

Specific supplementary rules may be 

enacted as needed.

Other regulations and conditions for short-term 

camping area use would be identified as required 

during interdisciplinary project planning. If, 

during the planning process, the interdisciplinary 

project planning team determines that 

modifications need to be made to the guidelines 

listed above those modifications may be made 

without the need for a planning amendment. 

Other regulations and conditions identified 

during ongoing operation of short-term camping 

areas would require public notification.

Interdisciplinary planning would evaluate and 

authorize development of special use areas 

within the management areas.

2.2.2.7 Visual Resources

No VRM standards were applied in either the 

Phoenix RMP (BLM 1988a) or the Lower Gila 

North MFP as amended (BLM 2005). The 

Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan and the Lower 

Gila South Resource Management Plan, signed 

in 2005, adopted the VRM management classes 

as inventoried in the Management Framework 

Plan of 1983. In addition, all designated 

wilderness would be allocated as VRM Class I 

Acres of VRM Classes are shown in Table 2-

2 and are portrayed on Map 2-9.

For descriptions of the VRM standards, please 

refer to the Visual Resources discussion of the 

Management Common to Both Planning Areas 

section of this chapter.

Public lands in T10N, R4W, Section 26 of the 

Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian 

would be managed for scenic values (Placerita 

Mining Camp area).

The public lands in T8N, R5W, Section 12 

would be managed for scenic values (Box 

Canyon).

Table 2-2. Visual Resource Management Classes by Alternative (BLM acres)

Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

(Proposed)

I 96,820 96,820 109,570 298,310 98,820

II 593,450 486,800 502,610 340,880 488,250

III 162,000 284,720 260,020 220,790 278,540

IV 144,730 98,660 94,800 107,020 103,390
Chapter 2

65

2.2.2.8 Rangeland Management

Land Use Allocation

Where applicable, livestock grazing would 

be permitted, under the terms of existing permits 

and leases. The planning area has 93 grazing 

authorizations and the existing grazing seasons 

of use would continue.

Desired Future Condition

Watersheds are in properly functioning 

condition, including their upland, riparian, and 

aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions 

support infiltration, storage, and release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform.

Ecological processes would be maintained to 

support healthy biotic populations and 

communities.

Management Actions

All previous versions of the grazing 

administration regulations have been succeeded 

by the Department of the Interior‘s Final Rule 

for Grazing Administration, issued in 1995.

This rule requires the implementing of standards 

and guidelines to achieve the fundamentals of 

rangeland health. The Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (discussed in the Land Health 

Standards and Rangeland Management/Grazing 

sections of Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives of this chapter) were completed in 

1997. The existing allotment boundaries are 

shown on Map 2-5.

Management would emphasize the use and 

perpetuation of native species. However, when 

restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded 

rangelands; nonintrusive, non-native plant 

species would be suitable for use where native 

species: 

are not available, 

are not economically feasible, 

cannot achieve ecological objectives as 

well as non-native species, and/or

cannot compete with already established 

non-native species. 

2.2.2.9 Mineral Resource 

Management

The mineral resources managed by the BLM's 

Phoenix District (PD) include more than 

minerals underlying BLM-managed surface 

areas. Mineral resource management includes 

thousands of acres of subsurface mineral estate 

beneath lands with surface rights held by others.

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

includes surface acres managed by the PD and 

presenting the most serious management 

challenges at the time. However, for this RMP, 

the minerals planning area is much larger. It is 

defined as the federally administered minerals 

beneath PD-managed lands where the surface 

rights are held by BLM, the State of Arizona, or 

private parties. Therefore, the minerals planning 

area, as shown on Map 1-2, extends far to the 

north and east beyond Agua Fria National 

Monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area boundaries. Map 2-10, shows 

areas of current minerals management within 

the Agua Fria National Monument and the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

Within the boundary of the Lower Gila North 

MFP as amended (BLM 2005), all lands in the 

planning area not closed to oil and gas leasing 

would remain open for such purposes. Federal 

minerals in designated wilderness are closed to 

oil and gas leasing. The remaining acres of 

federal minerals in the MFP planning area would 

be open to oil and gas leasing. Conditions of 

approval and special stipulations would be 

developed and incorporated as part of any 

operational permit after site-specific 

environmental analyses are completed and 

documented per the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Stipulations would mitigate impacts 

to special status species, cultural areas, and other 

resources affected by leasing-related activities.
Chapter 2

66

Management Actions

Leasable Minerals

Restrict any actions or withdrawal in the 

planning area that would segregate leasable 

minerals unless there is strong evidence that the 

area is not conducive to mineralization.

All land in the planning area would remain open 

to mineral leasing. Should exploration or 

development of leasable minerals be pursued, 

special stipulations would be incorporated into 

the lease agreement after the results of sitespecific environmental assessments for each 

action are known.

Mineral withdrawals within ACECs are subject 

to valid existing rights. The ACEC would be 

closed to mineral leasing effective on the date 

they were created. Unless stated otherwise, nonFederal lands acquired within an ACEC will be 

closed to the operation of the mining laws, and 

expired leases may not be renewed.

Surface occupancy for oil and gas development 

would be prohibited in riparian areas of the 

Bumble Bee and Williams Mesa MRMAs, and 

the Hassayampa RMA.

Federally administered minerals beneath lands 

addressed in this plan, where the surface rights 

are held by BLM, the State of Arizona, or 

private parties (Map 2-10), would be open to 

exploration and leasing. 

Saleable Minerals

Sales of mineral materials to the public would 

continue to be administered on a case-by-case 

basis under 43 CFR 3600. Generally, saleable 

minerals are sold at market prices. Free-use 

permits would continue to be issued to the State 

and local communities as the need arises.

Mineral withdrawals within ACECs are subject 

to valid existing rights. The ACEC would be 

closed to mineral sales effective on the date they 

were created. Unless stated otherwise, nonFederal lands acquired within an ACEC will be 

closed to the operation of the mining laws.

Demand for saleable minerals would be met by 

sales or free use permits on a case-by-case basis.

Federally administered minerals beneath lands 

addressed in this planning effort, where the 

surface rights are held by BLM, the State of 

Arizona, or private parties (Map 2-10) would 

be open to mineral material disposal on a caseby-case basis, with determinations based on 

consistency with BLM's management policies 

and objectives.

Locatable Minerals

Exploration for and development of locatable 

minerals are provided for under the 43 CFR 

3802 and 43 CFR 3809. These regulations 

provide for mineral development in conjunction 

with resource protection and are designed to 

prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of 

the environment from mining. Mining within 

the planning area would continue to be 

administered on a case-by-case basis. The 

planning area would generally be left open to 

mineral location and development.

Mineral withdrawals within ACECs are subject 

to valid existing rights. The ACEC would be 

closed to mining claim location upon approval 

of the plan creating the ACEC. Unless 

otherwise stated, non-Federal lands acquired 

within an ACEC would be closed to the 

operation of the mining laws. Mining claims 

within an ACEC may be examined for validity 

and contested if appropriate, as determined by 

the BLM State Director. The Lower Gila MFP 

(BLM 1983) recommended withdrawal of 

proposed ACECs from mineral entry. This 

recommendation was not implemented. 

Minimize detrimental impacts of mineral 

exploration and development to habitat in the 

2000-acre basin east and south of Harquahala 

Peak. Require performance bonds from all 

owner/operators to prevent unnecessary and 

undue degradation. Review leaching operations 

for environmental and human safety
Chapter 2

67

2.2.2.10 Fire Management

Responses to wildfire would be full suppression 

in all areas. Full suppression means taking 

sustained and appropriate action to promptly 

suppress wildfires.

2.2.2.11 Wild Horses and Burros

In 1971, following the passage of the Wild FreeRoaming Horse and Burro Act (WHBA), BLM 

was required to designate areas where wild 

horses and burros existed before 1971. No wild 

horses are known to have been within either the 

monument or the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area in 1971.

BLM manages burros on public land at the 

minimum level needed to ensure the herd‘s freeroaming character, health, and self-sustaining 

ability. Burro Herd Areas (HAs) and Herd 

Management Areas (HMAs) are shown on Map 

2-5.

BLM classified the Lake Pleasant Area as a 

HMA and the Harquahala Mountains as a HA 

with a "zero burro population." The latter 

decision was based on conflicts in the area with 

private landowners, agricultural interests, 

wildlife such as bighorn sheep, and other 

resources. A zero burro population required 

removing all burros from the mountain range.

Funding, however, was not provided and the 

burros have not yet been removed. Nuisance 

burros would be removed on a case-by-case 

basis.

Managing the 80,800-acre Lake Pleasant Burro 

HMA would continue in the manner described in 

the current herd management plan. In 

the 156,255 acre Harquahala HA, nuisance 

burros would continue to be removed on a caseby-case basis. If funding is received, burros 

would be removed from the HA.

2.2.2.12 Resource Conservation 

Areas and Multiple Resource 

Management Areas

Two RCAs, one RMA, and three MRMAs 

would remain under current management under 

Alternative A. These areas are listed below 

with management decisions and shown on Map 

2-4.

Black Canyon RCA (115,650 acres). 

Lake Pleasant RCA (297,080 acres). 

Bumble Bee MRMA (52,270 acres) -

Develop an activity plan; prohibit 

surface occupancy of oil and gas leases 

in riparian zones; prohibit land use 

authorizations in riparian areas; limit 

motorized vehicles to existing roads and 

trails; acquire land. 

Cordes Junction MRMA (10,810 

acres) - Develop an activity plan; 

prohibit surface occupancy of oil and 

gas leases in riparian zones; prohibit 

land use authorizations in riparian areas; 

limit motorized vehicles to existing 

roads and trails; acquire land. 

Williams Mesa MRMA (59,740 acres) -

Develop an activity plan; prohibit 

surface occupancy of oil and gas leases 

in riparian zones; prohibit land use 

authorizations in riparian areas; close 

3.5 miles of Tule Creek to motorized 

vehicles, elsewhere limited to existing 

roads and trails; and acquire land. 

Hassayampa River RMA - 12 miles. 

Vulture Mine Road from Highway 60 south to 

the Vulture Mine would be designated as a 

scenic drive, including a scenic 1/2 mile 

corridor on either side of the road.

BLM would interpret, through signing; the

existing scenic, geologic, and botanic values in 

T6N, R5W, Section 6.

Motorized vehicles would be limited to existing 

roads and trails in the Hassayampa River RMA.

2.2.2.13 Travel Management
Chapter 2

68

Land Use Allocation

OHV Designations (Map 2-11)

Motorized vehicles would be limited to existing 

roads and motorized routes in the Cordes 

Junction and Williams Mesa MRMAs.

Motorized vehicles would be limited to 

designated roads and trails in the Bumble Bee 

MRMA. A 3.5-mile portion of Tule 

Creek would be closed to motorized vehicles. 

Within the area covered by the Phoenix RMP 

(BLM 1988a), vehicular travel would be limited 

to existing roads and motorized routes in use in 

1988, except for areas closed or limited to 

designated roads and routes.

The areas covered by the Lower Gila North 

MFP as amended (BLM 2005) (BLM 1983) as 

amended by the Approved Amendment to the 

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan 

and the Lower Gila South Resource 

Management Plan (2005) Off-highway and 

special recreation vehicles would be limited to 

existing and/or designated roads and vehicle 

routes. No unauthorized cross-country vehicle 

travel would be permitted. Creation of 

unauthorized new trails and widening or 

extending existing trails would not be permitted. 

A "designated routes only" off-highway and 

special recreation vehicle classification would be 

enacted on a management area, or on a sitespecific basis, when needed for resource 

protection or to ensure consistency with 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

classifications.

The five designated wilderness areas would 

remain closed to all forms of motorized vehicles 

and mechanized uses, as legally mandated by te 

Wilderness Act.

Management Action

A hiking and a horseback riding trail system 

would be established near Wickenburg. The 

width and exact routing of the trail would be 

determined through close consultation with the 

concerned public. The trail would be marked by 

standard trail markers, and hazard warnings 

would be installed where needed.

BLM would work with its partners to establish a 

trail system between Wickenburg and Wagoner 

to ensure continuous management on public 

lands.

2.3 Alternative B

The following discussion, with the Desired 

Future Conditions, land use allocations, and 

management actions described in the 

Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives section of this chapter, 

constitute proposed Alternative B.

2.3.1 Agua Fria National 

Monument

The overall theme of Alternative B is to plan for 

increased public use and include more 

recreation-related development, access, and 

education interpretation, consistent with 

protecting monument resources. Developed 

recreation is addressed by establishing a Front 

Country RMZ, while a Back Country RMZ 

would be established to retain primitive 

landscape values in the Agua Fria River Canyon 

and its tributary canyons. Selected 

archaeological sites would be made available for 

increased public visitation by allocating areas 

for relatively intensive and moderate public use.

Access would be allowed for visitors' 

opportunities, including use of existing vehicle 

routes. Grazing would remain similar to current 

management, but grazing within riparian areas 

would be limited to winter (November 1 to 

March 1).

2.3.1.1 Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No new ACECs are proposed by Alternative B, 

and the existing Perry Mesa and Larry Canyon 

ACECs (Map 2-2) would be removed from 
Chapter 2

69

designation because the National Monument 

Proclamation (Appendix A - Agua Fria National 

Monument Proclamation) establishes a higher 

level of protection and management across a 

more extensive landscape.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Reaches of the Agua Fria River that have been 

determined to be suitable for WSR status would 

be managed in a way that does not degrade the 

values defining their suitability.

Back Country Byways

A back country byway would be evaluated for 

Bloody Basin Road and nominated if standards 

and requirements are met (Map 2-12).

Desired Future Condition 

The back country byway would provide a 

vehicle-based, back country experience with 

amenities to heighten visitors' experiences, and 

to educate/inform them about interesting 

natural/cultural features along the route.

Visitors could expect the road to be occasionally 

difficult and settings to be remote. The road 

might not be accessible to all classes of 

vehicle. High clearance might be needed to 

traverse the whole route. The area 1/2 mile to 

either side of the road's centerline would be 

maintained in a semi-primitive motorized 

recreation setting, except at the La Plata cultural 

site where the desired setting would be more like 

roaded natural, should it be further developed 

for public use.

Management Actions

Road maintenance would conform to BLM‘s 

Maintenance Intensity of Level 3  ̳Medium‘ 

(BLM Roads and Trail Terminology Report) and 

be passable by high-clearance vehicles.

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions are described in Section 2.3.1.6 

Visual Resources.

BLM would acquire easements and rights-ofway where needed to ensure long-term public 

access. 

Monument features along the route would be 

interpreted, including prehistoric cultural 

features, historic homesteads, settlements, and 

ranching history.

Directional, safety, and interpretive signing 

would be installed to enhance public use, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of the route.

Administrative Actions

Develop a cooperative and a collaborative site 

plan with landowners and other agencies 

that would be affected by the byway 

designation.

2.3.1.2 Lands and Realty

Land Use Allocations

Utility and Transportation Corridors

Management Actions

The existing utility corridor (designated by the 

Phoenix RMP [BLM 1988a] in the Black 

Canyon RCA) would be narrowed so that the 

eastern boundary of the utility corridor would 

follow the easternmost boundaries of any 

existing right-of-way that is or are currently 

within the corridor identified in the Phoenix 

RMP (Map 2-13).

2.3.1.3 Biological Resources

Under Alternative B, wildlife habitat 

management would continue under current 

management, except the existing Larry Canyon 

ACEC would be eliminated because

the National Monument Proclamation 

(Appendix A) provides for a higher level of 

protection and management across a more 

extensive landscape.
Chapter 2

70

Biological resources would be subject to the 

same management guidance as in Section 2.7.1.4 

- Biological resources from the Management 

Common to Both Planning area and Section

2.7.2.5 - Biological Resources from 

Management Common to the Agua Fria 

National Monument. 

2.3.1.4 Cultural Resources

Alternative B would include development of 

access, interpretive facilities, and interpretive 

media for selected archaeological sites in the 

monument (Map 2-14, Multiple Resource 

Allocation). These archaeological sites would 

be allocated to SCRMAs focused on 

varying levels of public use, as described in the 

Cultural Resources section of Management 

Common to Agua Fria National Monument and 

shown in Table 2-3 SCRMAs.

High use represents the most intensive degree of 

interpretive development associated with a 

SCRMA, and Moderate use involves less 

intensive development of access and interpretive 

facilities. All areas of the monument not shown 

as High or Moderate use SCRMAs on Map 2-

14 would be considered areas of Low public use 

that are not available for on-the-ground 

interpretive development or commercial tours.

2.3.1.5 Recreation Resources

In Alternative B, the entire monument would be 

allocated to a Special Recreation Management 

Area with three Recreation Management Zones 

within it. These zones would include a Back 

Country RMZ (12,700 acres) to manage and 

maintain the natural landscape character in the 

Agua Fria River Canyon and tributary washes 

(Map 2-14). A Passage RMZ (300 acres) would 

be created along vehicle routes designated as 

open to allow motorized access to and through 

the Back Country. The remainder of the 

monument would be designated a Front Country 

RMZ of 57,900 acres, where more focus could 

be placed on recreation and interpretive 

opportunities. Desired future conditions (DFC) 

for these zones can be found in the Recreation 

and Public Access discussion of the 

Management Common to Agua Fria National 

Monument section of this chapter.

Land Use Allocation

Front Country Recreation Management Zone 

(57,900 acres).

Desired Future Condition

See Desired Future Condition description in 

Section 2.7.2.7 of the Management Common to 

Agua Fria National Monument section of this

chapter.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.3.1.6.

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) and 

Concessions: 

Up to 12 SRPs would be 

authorized within the monument each 

year. These SRPs might include any 

combination of the following: 

o Commercial enterprises (e.g. 

jeep tours, outfitters), 

Table 2-3. Alternative B: Cultural Resource -

Public-Use Areas

Level of 

Public Use

Locations/Sites

High Pueblo la Plata and Fort Silver 

(Pueblo la Plata Complex) 

Badger Springs Pueblo, the Arrastra 

site, Badger Springs rock art, and 

the Rollie site.

Moderate Baby Canyon Pueblo and Pueblo 

Pato 

Richinbar Ruin

The historic Teskey homestead near 

the Agua Fria River.

Low Public use of archaeological sites 

would be limited in all other areas 

not described above.
Chapter 2

71

o Commercial special events, and

o Noncommercial special events. 

If consistent with monument values and 

objectives, recreation concession leases and 

vendor permits would be issued to enhance 

visitor use. Concessions and vending 

permits would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis, with determinations based on consistency 

with management objectives and clearly 

demonstrated visitor needs. 

Dispersed Camping:

Camping permits could be required if 

resource damage occurs that inhibits 

achieving resource DFCs, threatens 

resources protected by the 

proclamation, or if health and safety 

issues emerge. If damage continues, 

more limitations might be required, 

including temporary or permanent area 

closures; limiting camping to designated 

sites, or seasonal limitations. 

Camping would be prohibited within 1/4 

mile of developed campgrounds. 

Camping would be prohibited at 

archaeological sites, including 

petroglyphs (rock art) sites. 

Camping would be allowed if at 

least 1/4 mile from intense or moderate 

public-use archaeological sites. 

Camping would be prohibited within 1/4 

mile from water sources "...containing 

water in such a place that wildlife or 

domestic stock will be denied access to 

the only reasonably available water 

(Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping).

Dispersed camping could be limited to 

certain designated areas if resource 

damage occurs. 

Developed Campgrounds:

Two campgrounds would be developed, 

one at Badger Springs and one along 

Bloody Basin Road. 

The campgrounds would each be 

limited to 20 campsites, each with a 

picnic table, fire ring, and ramada. 

Potable water would be developed if 

practical. 

Restroom facilities would be provided to 

address health and sanitation issues. 

Campfires:

Campfires would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile of intensive and moderate publicuse archaeological sites. 

Campfires would be prohibited at 

archaeological sites, including 

petroglyphs (rock art) sites. 

Campfires would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile of a developed campground. In 

campgrounds, campfires would be 

allowed only in campfire rings. 

Campfires would be prohibited within 

200 feet of a public area, such as a trail 

or other facilities. 

Campfires would be allowed at 

dispersed campsites. 

Firewood could be collected only 

for campfire use. Visitors could collect 

dead, down, and detached material 

only for campfires. Vegetation use and 

disturbance would be monitored, and 

this use might be temporarily or 

permanently suspended to prevent 

resource damage. 

Recreational Target Shooting:

Targets need to be of a type and material 

that will not produce litter and must be 

cleaned up after use. 

Spent shell casings have to be cleaned 

up after use. 

Shooting would be managed to reduce 

resource degradation, to reduce social 

conflicts, and to provide for public 

safety. 

Shooting would be prohibited within 1⁄2 

mile of identified areas where people 

congregate, including trailheads, 

campgrounds, interpretive sites, kiosks, 

and other high-use sites. 
Chapter 2

72

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in 

Section 2.3.1.8. 
Chapter 2

73

Land Use Allocation

Back Country Recreation Management Zone of 

12,700 acres 

Desired Future Condition

See Desired Future Condition description 

in Section 2.7.2.7 of the Management Common 

to Agua Fria National Monument section of this 

chapter.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.3.1.6.

SRPs and Concessions:

Up to 12 SRPs would be 

authorized within the monument each 

year. The SRPs might include any 

combination of the following: 

o Commercial (e.g. hunting 

outfitter/guides), 

o Commercial special events, and

o Noncommercial special events. 

If consistent with monument values and 

objectives, recreation concession leases 

and vendor permits would be issued to 

enhance visitor use, visitor 

services, visitor safety, and visitor 

enjoyment. Concessions and vending 

permits would be considered on a caseby-case basis, with determinations based 

on consistency with management 

objectives and clearly demonstrated 

needs. 

Dispersed Camping:

Camping permits could be required if 

resource damage occurs that inhibits 

achieving resource DFCs or threatens 

resources protected by the proclamation, 

or if health and safety issues emerge. If 

damage continues, more 

limitations might be required, 

including temporary or permanent area 

closures, limiting camping to designated 

sites, or seasonal limitations or closures. 

Dispersed camping would be prohibited 

within 1⁄4 mile of a developed 

campground. 

Dispersed camping would be 

prohibited at archaeological sites, 

including petroglyphs (rock art) sites. 

Dispersed camping would be allowed if 

at least 1⁄4 mile from intense or moderate 

public-use archaeological sites. 

Camping would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile from water sources "...containing 

water in such a place that wildlife or 

domestic stock will be denied access to 

the only reasonably available water 

(Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping). 

Developed Campgrounds:

None. 

Campfires: 

Campfires would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile of intensive and moderate publicuse archaeological sites. 

Campfires would be prohibited on 

archaeological sites, including 

petroglyphs (rock art) sites. 

Campfires would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile of a developed campground. 

Campfires would be prohibited within 

200 feet of a trail or other public use 

facility.

Campfires would be allowed at 

dispersed campsites. 

Firewood collection would be limited to 

campfire use only. Collecting dead, 

down, and detached material would be 

allowed for campfire firewood. 

Vegetation use and 

disturbance would be monitored, and 

firewood collecting might be 

temporarily or permanently suspended 

to prevent resource damage. 

Recreational Target Shooting:
Chapter 2

74

Targets need to be of a type and material 

that will not produce litter and must be 

cleaned up after use. 

Spent shells have to be cleaned up after 

use. 

Shooting would be managed to reduce 

resource degradation, to reduce social 

conflicts, and to provide for public 

safety. 

Shooting would be prohibited within 1⁄2 

mile of identified areas where people 

congregate, including trailheads, 

campgrounds, interpretive sites, kiosks, 

and other high-use sites. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in 

Section 2.3.1.8. 

Land Use Allocation

The Passage Recreation Management Zone 

would consist of 300 acres.

Desired Future Condition

See Desired Future Condition description in 

Section 2.7.2.7 of the Management Common to 

Agua Fria National Monument section of this 

chapter.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.3.1.6. 

River crossings at Kelton Ranch, EZ Ranch, 

Horseshoe Ranch, and Cross Y Ranch would be 

maintained.

SRPs and Concessions:

Up to 12 SRPs would be 

authorized within the monument each 

year. These SRPs might include any 

combination of the following: 

o Commercial (e.g. jeep tours, 

outfitters). 

o Commercial special events, and

o Noncommercial special events. 

If consistent with monument values and 

objectives, recreation concession leases 

and vendor permits would be issued to 

enhance visitor use, visitor 

services, visitor safety, and visitor 

enjoyment. Concessions and vending 

permits would be considered on a caseby-case basis, with determinations based 

on consistency with management 

objectives and clear, demonstrated need. 

Dispersed Camping:

Camping permits could be required if 

resource damage occurs that inhibits 

achieving resource DFCs or threatens 

resources protected by the proclamation, 

or if health and safety issues emerge. If 

damage continues, more 

limitations might be required, 

including temporary or permanent area 

closures, limiting camping to designated 

sites, or seasonal limitations or closures. 

Dispersed camping would be prohibited 

within 1⁄4 mile of a developed 

campground. 

Dispersed camping would be 

prohibited at archaeological sites, 

including petroglyphs (rock art) sites. 

Dispersed camping would be allowed if 

at least 1⁄4 mile from intense or moderate 

public-use archaeological sites. 

Camping would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile from water sources "...containing 

water in such a place that wildlife or 

domestic stock will be denied access to 

the only reasonably available water 

(Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping). 

Dispersed camping could be limited 

to designated areas if resource damage 

occurs. 

Developed Campgrounds:

None. 
Chapter 2

75

Campfires: 

Campfires would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile of intensive and moderate publicuse archaeological sites. 

Campfires would be prohibited on 

archaeological sites, including 

petroglyphs (rock art) sites. 

Campfires would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile of a developed campground. 

Campfires would be allowed at 

dispersed campsites. 

Firewood collection would be limited to 

campfire use only. Collecting dead, 

down, and detached material would be 

allowed for campfire firewood.

Vegetation use and disturbance would 

be monitored, and this use might be 

temporarily or permanently suspended 

to prevent resource damage. 

Recreational Target Shooting:

Targets need to be of a type and material 

that will not produce litter and must be 

cleaned up after use. 

Spent shell casings would need to be 

cleaned up after use. 

Shooting would be managed to reduce 

resource degradation, to reduce social 

conflicts, and to provide for public 

safety. 

Shooting would be prohibited within 1/2 

mile of identified areas where people 

congregate, including trailheads, 

campgrounds, interpretive sites, kiosks, 

and other high-use sites. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreational Use

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in 

Section 2.3.1.8. 

Administrative Actions

Site-specific baseline data for assessing the 

effects of dispersed camping would be collected, 

and a monitoring process developed so change 

can be detected and resource damage 

determinations can be made.

Baseline data would also be collected to 

determine environmental and social impacts of 

recreational target shooting. The data would be 

used to determine the effects that are now 

occurring and to establish standards for future 

management. A monitoring plan would be 

developed to detect change. Unacceptable 

impacts to monument resources and public 

safety concerns could result in further 

management actions ranging from increased 

restrictions to closure.

2.3.1.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative B throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-15. 

Within the Agua Fria National Monument, 

allocate:

Front Country and Passage RMZs to 

VRM Class III. 

Back Country RMZ to VRM Class II. 

1/2 mile either side of Bloody Basin 

Road Back Country Byway to VRM 

Class II. 

Utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III.

2.3.1.7 Rangeland Management

Land Use Allocation

Eleven grazing authorizations would continue to 

be administered within Agua Fria National 

Monument.

Desired Future Condition 

Watersheds are in properly functioning 

conditions, including their upland, riparian, and 

aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions 
Chapter 2

76

support infiltration, storage, and release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform.

Ecological processes are maintained to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities.

Standard 2 of the Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Land Health Standards) 

would be achieved within 5 years in all riparian 

areas where livestock grazing precluded 

achieving that standard.

Management Actions

Livestock grazing in riparian areas would be 

limited to the winter (November 1 to March 1).

Inventory and/or monitoring studies will be used 

to determine if adjustments to permitted use 

levels, terms and conditions and management 

practices are necessary in order to meet and/or 

make significant progress towards meeting the 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

other Land Use Plan Objectives.

Fence construction and maintenance will follow 

guidance provided in BLM's Handbook for 

Fencing H-1741.

2.3.1.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The entire monument is allocated as Limited to 

Designated Routes (Map 2-16). 

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. Cross-country motorized travel is 

prohibited except in the case of an emergency or 

for approved administrative purposes.

River crossings at Kelton Ranch, EZ Ranch, 

Horseshoe Ranch, and Cross Y Ranch would be 

maintained.

Within Front Country

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Recreation Use:

Trails would be developed as needed to 

enhance resources, recreation 

experiences, and to protect monument 

values. 

All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

area. 

Trails would be designed to blend into 

the environment. 

Loop, connector, and linear trails would 

be built to meet recreation, access, and 

resource objectives. 

Trails to maintain connectivity 

to recreation opportunities such as 

hunting, hiking, equestrian use, and 

viewing cultural sites could be 

considered. 

Trails to provide linkage with other 

connector trails beyond the border of the 

monument would also be considered. 

Opportunities to link networks of nonmotorized trails within the monument to 

those outside the monument on other 

BLM's lands, or with other adjacent 

jurisdictions, including Tonto and 

Prescott National Forests, Yavapai 

County, and local communities, would 

be explored where they are consistent 

with monument values and do not 

impair protection of monument 

resources. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

New vehicular routes would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis, with 

determinations based on protection and 

enhancement of monument values. 

If monument values are not 

compromised, routes would also be 

considered for connectivity and to 
Chapter 2

77

provide for greater access to recreation 

opportunities. 

Bloody Basin and Badger Springs 

Roads would be maintained to at least 

a BLM Level 3 standard (BLM 9100 

Manual) to provide safety for public use. 

Loop routes for interpretive 

opportunities for all-terrain vehicle 

(ATV) travel would be evaluated. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 

All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Management Common 

to Agua Fria National Monument, in 

Section 2.7.2.10. 

OHV access would be managed to 

provide for a variety of use 

experiences, including access for 

public visitation of the monument's 

cultural and biological resources. 

Within Back Country

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Recreation Use:

Trails would be developed as needed to 

enhance resources and recreation 

experiences, and protect monument 

values. 

All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

area. 

Trails would be designed to blend into 

the environment. 

Loop, connector, and linear trails would 

be built to meet recreation, access, and 

resource objectives. 

Trails to maintain connectivity 

to recreation opportunities such as 

hunting, hiking, equestrian use, and 

viewing cultural sites would be 

considered. 

Trails to provide linkage with other 

connector trails beyond the border of the 

monument would also be considered. 

Opportunities to link networks of nonmotorized trails within the monument to 

those outside the monument on other 

BLM's lands, or with other adjacent 

jurisdictions, including Tonto and 

Prescott National Forests, Yavapai 

County, and local communities, would 

be explored where they are consistent 

with monument values and do not 

impair protection of monument 

resources. 

Non-motorized trails might be built to 

provide access to core use areas. They 

may consist of minimal trail tread 

development or routes marked only by 

low impact posts such as fiberglass with 

minimal ground disturbance. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Off-Highway Vehicles:

The Back Country RMZ would be 

managed as a non-motorized area. 

Within Passage

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Recreation Use: 

Trails would be developed as needed to 

enhance resources and recreation 

experiences, and protect monument 

values. 

All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

Trails would be designed to blend into

the environment. 

Loop, connector, and linear trails would 

be built to meet recreation, access, and 

resource objectives. 

Trails to maintain connectivity 

to recreation opportunities, such as 

hunting, hiking, equestrian use, and 
Chapter 2

78

viewing cultural sites could be 

considered. 

Trails to provide linkage with other 

connector trails beyond the border of the 

monument could also be considered. 

Opportunities to link networks of nonmotorized and non-mechanized trails 

within the monument to those outside 

the monument on other BLM's lands, or 

with other adjacent jurisdictions, 

including Tonto and Prescott National 

Forests, Yavapai County, and local 

communities, would be explored where 

they are consistent with monument 

values and do not impair protection of 

monument resources. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use:

If analysis determines new route construction is 

needed to mitigate resource conflicts but 

maintain necessary access, the Passage 

RMZ would be adjusted to incorporate the 

redesigned route network. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

No new routes would be built within the 

Back Country RMZ except to mitigate 

resource conflicts. 

If analysis determines new route 

construction is needed to mitigate 

resource conflicts but to maintain 

necessary access, the Passage 

RMZ would be adjusted to incorporate 

the redesigned route network. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 

All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Management Common 

to Agua Fria National Monument in 

Section 2.7.2.10.

OHV access would be managed to 

provide for a variety of use experiences, 

especially to provide access for public 

visitation of cultural and biological 

resources of the monument. 

Implementation Actions

Public Access

An evaluation tree review process, as described 

in Appendix D, was used to establish a 

designated public access and route system to 

support resource objectives consistent with 

Alternative B and to protect monument 

resources. The results of the evaluation are 

shown in Map 2-17, and a summary of route 

status and quantity is shown below:

Routes Open 137 miles

Routes Closed 37 miles

New Routes 5 miles

2.3.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area

The overall theme for Alternative B for the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

emphasizes resource use and development, 

while ensuring that resource protection is not 

compromised. This Alternative provides for

both developed and primitive recreation by 

establishing SRMAs and lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics, as well as 

developed public use of cultural resources.

Wildlife habitats and grazing would remain 

similar to current management, with a change of 

riparian pasture use to winter season. Areas 

would remain open to mining. The number of 

utility corridors would increase, and corridors 

would be widened. VRM objectives would be 

set based on management activities and land 

uses being provided for in a specific area so that 

they may be achieved within the VRM Class 
Chapter 2

79

objective being set. Access within the planning 

area would be increased more than under the 

other Alternatives. The MUs for Alternative B

are shown in Map 2-18.

2.3.2.1 Management Applicable 

to the Entire BradshawHarquahala under this 

Alternative

2.3.2.1.1 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Lands potentially suitable for disposal by sale or 

exchange would consist of parcels outside the 

MUs that are not within a land use allocation 

(Map 2-19). Other criteria limiting which lands 

might be selected for disposal are described 

in the Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas (Section 2.7.1.2), 58,400 acres 

would potentially be suitable for disposal. Of 

these 58,400 acres, 5,200 acres are scattered 

parcels outside the planning area boundaries but 

have been included in these planning documents.

Lands that would be considered for potential 

acquisition would include State and private 

lands (willing seller) having important resources 

values. When acquired, these lands would be 

managed consistently with the resource 

management prescriptions outlined in this land 

use plan that apply to other nearby public lands.

These lands would meet the criteria described 

under the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas in the discussion under Lands 

and Realty as well as program objectives 

reflected in Alternative B.

Utility and Transportation Corridors

Under this Alternative, new utility corridors 

within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

(Map 2-20) would be designated for 

future expected demands. These designations 

would respond to the demand for the 

intensification of the power grid and would be 

consistent with the utility regulations of the 

Arizona Corporation Commission.

2.3.2.1.2 Rangeland 

Management

Land Use Allocation

A total of 93 grazing authorizations would 

continue to be administered within the planning 

area.

Desired Future Condition 

Watersheds are in properly functioning 

conditions, including their upland, riparian, and 

aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions 

support infiltration, storage, and release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform.

Ecological processes are maintained to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities.

Standard 2 of the Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Land Health 

Standards) would be achieved within five years 

in all riparian areas where livestock grazing 

precluded achievement of that standard.

Management Actions

Livestock grazing in riparian areas would be 

limited to winter (November 1 to March 1).

This restriction would be implemented where 

BLM can effect a change and where grazing is 

precluding achievement of the Desired Plant 

Community (DPC). Grazing allotment 

boundaries are shown in Alternative B on Map 

2-21.

On unfenced allotments, livestock control fences 

and alternate water sources would be built where 

needed to meet natural resource objectives. 

Fence construction and maintenance will follow 

guidance provided in BLM's Handbook for 

Fencing H-1741.
Chapter 2

80

2.3.2.1.3 Mineral Resource 

Management

Maps 2-22, 2-23, and Map 2-24, show the 

minerals management areas proposed under 

Alternative B that are within the Agua Fria 

National Monument and the BradshawHarquahala Planning Areas. The following 

descriptions of mineral types include 

information on any mining closures.

Management Actions

Leasable Minerals

Lands reconveyed to the Federal Government, 

which are now closed to leasing, would be 

opened under the Mineral Leasing Act. In 

addition, all other lands would be open for 

mineral leasing and exploration except (1) lands 

with existing segregations or withdrawals, and 

(2) the Tule Creek ACEC, which would be 

closed to mineral leasing.

Leases would be issued with special stipulations 

to protect resources. Stipulations to protect 

important surface values would be based on 

interdisciplinary review of individual proposals 

and environmental analyses.

Saleable Minerals (Mineral Materials)

Lands reconveyed to the Federal 

Government and now closed to mineral material 

disposal would be opened under applicable 

laws. In addition, except for legislatively 

withdrawn areas, other withdrawn areas, and 

segregated areas; all public lands within the 

planning area would be open to mineral material 

disposal on a case-by-case basis.

The Tule Creek ACEC and lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to mineral material disposal.

Locatable Minerals

Lands reconveyed to the Federal Government 

that are now closed to mineral entry would be 

opened to location under the mining laws. All 

small tract lands would be opened to location 

under the mining laws. In addition, all other 

lands would be opened for location except: 

(1) lands with existing segregations or 

withdrawals and (2) the Tule Creek ACEC, 

which is recommended for closure to location 

under the mining laws.

2.3.2.1.4 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

All public lands in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area would be allocated as limited use 

areas, with motorized and mechanized vehicle 

use limited to designated routes. The 

Hassayampa River Canyon, Hells Canyon, 

Harquahala Mountains, Big Horn Mountains, 

and Hummingbird Spring Wildernesses would 

remain closed to motorized and mechanized use 

as shown in Map 2-16. 

Desired Future Conditions

Define, designate, implement, and monitor 

a comprehensive travel management network 

affording a range of high-quality and diverse 

motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities. The network would consist of a 

system of areas, roads, routes, and/or trails. The 

travel management network and associated 

recreation opportunities would be consistent 

with other resource management objectives and 

recreation settings for the area.

Management Actions

Limit all vehicles to designated routes. Crosscountry motorized travel will not be permitted 

except in cases of emergency or for approved 

administrative purposes.

Implementation Actions

An evaluation process, similar to one described 

in Appendix D, will be used to establish a 
Chapter 2

81

designated public access and route system to 

support resource objectives consistent with 

Alternative B. 

Develop comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management Plans for the 

Management Units and other public lands within 

the planning area. These plans would 

implement route designations on the public 

lands.

2.3.2.2 Management Units

Under Alternative B, five MUs are identified as 

geographical units for presenting the land use 

allocations. These units are summarized with 

their land use allocations and management 

actions in the following section.

The document sections discussing the five 

Management Units and the maps on which they 

appear are as follows:

2.3.2.2.1 Black Canyon Management 

Unit, Map 2-25. 

2.3.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs 

Management Unit, Map 2-26.

2.3.2.2.3 Hassayampa Management 

Unit, Map 2-27. 

2.3.2.2.4 Harquahala Management Unit, 

Map 2-28. 

2.3.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management Unit, 

Map 2-29. 

Allocations outside MUs are discussed in 

Section 2.3.2.2.6 and shown on Map 2-30. As 

noted, areas within the MUs that do not receive 

specific land use allocations would be 

administered according to the DFC and 

management actions presented under 

Management Units and in the Management 

Common to All Action Alternatives section of 

this chapter.

2.3.2.2.1 Black Canyon 

Management Unit

The Black Canyon MU stretches from the 

southern end of Table Mesa in the south to 

Cordes Junction in the north. It is bounded by 

Agua Fria National Monument and Tonto 

National Forest on the east and the Prescott 

National Forest on the west as shown on Map 2-

25. The MU contains the following land:

68,730 acres of BLM-administered 

lands. 

12,600 acres of Arizona State land. 

6,780 acres of private land. 

1,100 acres of county park lands in 

both Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. 

Vision

During the planning process, local citizens 

expressed their concerns and vision for the 

future of the Black Canyon MU. A diverse 

group of interested citizens are engaged in a 

collective effort to conserve the ecological, 

cultural, open space, and recreation values of the 

Black Canyon MU, so that it remains a wellmanaged, publicly owned urban interface area 

where people want to live and recreate. The 

MU‘s natural character is maintained while 

continuing to provide an array of public 

opportunities in the future for visual resources, 

environmental education, recreation, and 

exploration within the framework of a healthy, 

properly functioning landscape. This 

community vision includes multiple uses that are 

consistent with and support the overall 

management objectives. The scenic views and 

recreation opportunities are maintained while 

protecting the watershed functions. The area 

offers properly managed and marketed quality 

recreation and tourism. 

The scenic corridor along Interstate Highway 17 

is preserved to promote tourism and welcome 

visitors to the area.

A comprehensive strategy and trails plan is 

completed to select and develop new single-use 

and multi-use trails, hiking, equestrian use, and 

vehicle routes for all lands within the MU. The 

strategy represents a collaborative effort with the 

AGFD, Prescott and Tonto National Forests, 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, and land 

managers of other trails to link to trails on public
Chapter 2

82

lands. The strategy includes a coordinated trail 

linkage between the Black Canyon City and 

Wickenburg areas.

An environmental education program exists to 

instill a land use ethic and educate school youth 

and adult users about the MU. Recreation 

opportunities are expanded in the MU for new 

and non-traditional users.

2.3.2.2.1.1 Special Area 

Designations

Special Area Designations would not 

be made within the Black Canyon MU.

2.3.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

No lands have been identified as available for 

disposal. All have been identified for 

acquisition.

Communication Sites

This MU has one designated communication 

site, the Black Canyon City communication site, 

which would be retained and subject to valid 

existing rights.

Utility and Transportation Corridors

The portion of the Black Canyon corridor to the 

west of Interstate 17 would be widened for 

viable future utility development. The western 

boundary of the corridor would be adjusted to 

be 1 mile west of the true center of I-17 (as 

defined by the center of the median), shown in 

Map 2-20.

2.3.2.2.1.3 Biological Resources

No biological allocations would be made within 

the Black Canyon MU. Biological resources 

would be subject to management guidance in 

Section 2.7.1.4 - Biological Resources from the 

Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources from the Management Common to 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

section. 

2.3.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocations

Black Mesa/Bumble Bee SCRMA and Black 

Canyon SCRMA

Desired Future Condition

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these

objectives and management actions. Selected 

sites are interpreted to further public knowledge, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of cultural heritage 

values. 

Management Actions 

A combination of some or all of following 

actions could be implemented at selected sites:

building visitors' facilities such 

as parking areas, platforms, restrooms, 

picnic tables, benches, or trash 

receptacles, 

installing signs along routes and trails to 

direct visitors to interpreted sites, 

building hardened walking trails, 

installing interpretive signs and register 

boxes, and

preparing brochures and related 

educational materials or programs. 

Actions would be implemented to stabilize, 

repair, and maintain sites in good condition. 

Commercial and noncommercial group tours 

could be authorized to sites allocated to public 

use, as long as they were conducted with 

protective stipulations in accordance 
Chapter 2

83

with BLM's regulations and provisions of 

special recreation permits.

Administrative Actions

Specific sites for public use would be selected 

by considering the following factors: 

the presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and suitable for 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

the condition of the site and the 

feasibility of stabilizing selected areas or 

features to withstand visitation, 

visitor safety considerations, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM‘s staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would 

participate in developing sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. Historic properties for heritage 

tourism would be developed to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.3.2.2.1.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocations

Table Mesa SRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

Manage for intensive camping, OHV use, 

equestrian activities, and casual use mining. The 

SRMA would offer a diverse network of

motorized single and two-track routes for 

general motorized recreation use, commercial 

use, and organized OHV events. 

Emphasize acceptable dust control and 

compatibility with neighboring communities and 

landowners. 

Emphasize semi-primitive motorized and

roaded-natural recreation settings. Users would 

be concentrated in some areas.

Develop facilities with a variety 

of amenities consistent with the desired 

recreation setting. Visitors could expect contact 

with BLM's representatives daily or more 

often. Nonintrusive signing would be present in 

most of the SRMA.

Management Actions 

Using a structured evaluation process, 

designate vehicle routes within this SRMA for 

general motorized recreation use, commercial 

use, and organized OHV events that are 

consistent with, and help achieve, all Desired 

Future Conditions for the area.

Locate and develop a staging and camping 

area for the following purposes:

meeting the high recreation demand, 

parking and unloading OHVs, 

overnight camping, 

event operations, 

informational signing, 

dust abatement, and

human health and safety. 

Limit to 20 acres the area of exposed barren soil.

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 2 per year.

Prohibit recreational target shooting within the 

SRMA.
Chapter 2

84

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.1.6.

Land Use Allocations

All remaining land within the Management 

Unit would be allocated to an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

2.3.2.2.1.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative B throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-15. 

Within the Black Canyon Management Unit:

the Table Mesa SRMA and an area west 

and north of Cordes Lakes would be 

allocated to VRM Class III, 

an area surrounding Black Canyon City 

would be allocated to VRM Class IV, 

utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV, and

the rest of the Management Unit would 

be allocated to VRM Class III. 

2.3.2.2.1.7 Mineral Resource 

Management

Alternative B proposes no mineral withdrawals 

or closures for the Black Canyon MU.

2.3.2.2.1.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Black Canyon Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16). 

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

The Table Mesa SRMA is discussed in Section

2.3.2.2.1.5 and would include a diverse network 

of motorized single and two-track routes for 

general motorized recreation use, commercial 

use, and organized OHV events consistent with 

SRMA objectives.

SCRMAs with sites allocated to public use are 

discussed in the Cultural Resources Section

2.3.2.2.1.4.

Management Actions

Limit all vehicles to designated routes. No crosscountry motorized travel would be permitted 

except in cases of emergency or for approved 

administrative purposes.

Consider building hardened walking trails at 

selected prehistoric and historic sites within 

the Black Mesa/Bumble Bee SCRMA and Black 

Canyon SCRMA.

2.3.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs 

Management Unit

The Castle Hot Springs MU is bounded by State 

Route 74 (the Carefree Highway) to the 

south, Prescott National Forest to the north, the 

Black Canyon MU to the east, and the 
Chapter 2

85

Hassayampa MU to the west (Map 2-26).

The MU contains the following lands:

112,430 acres of BLM-administered 

lands. 

53,730 acres of Arizona State land. 

32,560 acres of private land.

22,870 acres of county park lands in 

both Maricopa and Yavapai 

Counties (Lake Pleasant Regional Park). 

1,100 acres of Bureau of Reclamation 

lands not in Lake Pleasant Regional 

Park.

2.3.2.2.2.1 Special Designations

Current special designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with management actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section.

Special Designation

Tule Creek ACEC (640 acres)

Relevance 

The Tule Creek area contains significant historic 

and cultural values, including the Fort Tule site, 

a prehistoric hilltop ruin occupied from A.D. 

1100 to 1300, and a home site occupied by 

miners in the 1920s and 1930s. Tule Creek is 

a rare Sonoran Desert riparian system dominated 

by emergent vegetation and occupied by 

endangered Gila topminnow.

Importance

The Fort Tule cultural site was probably used as 

a significant connection in a regional 

communication system based on signaling 

among hilltop sites. Its role in the 

communication system can offer important 

information on prehistoric social systems during 

the era it was used.

Tule Creek and its sensitive biological 

resources are extremely vulnerable to 

disturbance and degradation from vehicle use, 

mining, and livestock grazing. Continued 

protection of Tule Creek is important to the 

recovery of the endangered fish.

Desired Future Condition 

The integrity of the riparian area, endangered 

species habitat quality, and cultural resources are 

maintained and protected from degradation.

Management Actions 

The fenced area would be closed to livestock 

grazing and motor vehicles. 

The ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral 

entry, closed to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and closed to mineral material disposal.

An interpretive site for biological and cultural 

resources would be developed. Where 

needed, measures to protect sites, such as site 

stabilization or closure to public access, would 

be implemented.

Administrative Actions

Continue to patrol archaeological sites with help 

from Site Steward Volunteers.

2.3.2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

No lands have been identified as available for 

disposal. 

Communication Sites

There are no designated communication sites 

within this MU.

2.3.2.2.2.3 Biological Resources

No allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Castle Hot Springs 

MU. Biological resources would be subject to 
Chapter 2

86

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas of this chapter 

and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area section.

2.3.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocations

Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria SCRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these

objectives and management actions. Selected 

sites are interpreted to further public knowledge, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of cultural heritage 

values. 

Management Actions

A combination of the some or all of the 

following and other actions could be 

implemented at selected sites: 

building visitor facilities such as parking 

areas, platforms, restrooms, picnic 

tables, benches, or trash receptacles, 

installing signs along routes and trails to 

direct visitors to interpreted sites, 

building hardened walking trails, 

installing interpretive signs and register 

boxes, and

preparing brochures and related 

educational materials or programs. 

Actions to stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in 

good condition could be undertaken.

Commercial and noncommercial group tours 

could be authorized to sites allocated to public 

use, as long as they were conducted with 

protective stipulations in accordance 

with BLM's regulations and provisions of 

special recreation permits.

Administrative Actions

Specific sites for public use would be selected 

by considering the following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

condition of the site and the feasibility 

of stabilizing selected areas or features 

to withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would 

participate in developing sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. Historic properties for heritage 

tourism would be developed to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.3.2.2.2.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA 

Desired Future Condition
Chapter 2

87

Manage mainly for intensive motorized single 

and two-track routes for general motorized 

recreation use, commercial use, organized OHV 

events, and competitive races.

Emphasize acceptable dust control and 

compatibility with neighboring communities and 

landowners. 

Emphasize semi-primitive motorized and 

roaded-natural recreation settings. Uses and 

users would be concentrated in some areas.

Develop facilities with a variety 

of amenities consistent with the desired 

recreation setting. Visitors could expect contact 

with BLM's representatives daily or more often.

Nonintrusive signing would be present in most 

of the SRMA.

Management Actions

Locate at least 20 miles of single and twotrack motorized vehicle routes for competitive 

races to provide a unique array of challenges for 

ATV and motorcycle competitive racing.

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 4 per year.

Locate and develop as many as 

two staging/camping areas for:

meeting the high recreation demand, 

parking and unloading of OHVs, 

overnight camping, 

event operations, 

informational signing, 

dust abatement, and

human health and safety.

Limit to 30 acres the area of exposed barren soil.

Prohibit recreational target shooting.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.2.6.

Land Use Allocation

All remaining land within the Management 

Unit would be allocated to an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

2.3.2.2.2.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations 

VRM classes for Alternative B throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-15.

Within Castle Hot Springs Management Unit:

the Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA 

would be allocated to VRM Class III 

objectives, 

Hells Canyon Wilderness is allocated to 

VRM Class I objectives, and

the rest of the Management Unit would 

be allocated to VRM Class II. 

2.3.2.2.2.7 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Lands managed to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to mineral 

material disposal.

Tule Creek ACEC would be withdrawn from 

mineral entry, closed to mineral and geothermal 

leasing, and closed to mineral material disposal.

2.3.2.2.2.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Castle Hot Springs Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions
Chapter 2

88

The Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA is 

discussed in the Recreation Resource Section

2.3.2.2.2.5. The SRMA would offer at least 20 

miles of single and two-track motorized vehicle 

routes available for competitive races to provide 

a unique array of challenges for ATV and 

motorcycle competitive racing. Allow general 

motorized recreation use, commercial use, 

organized OHV events, and competitive races on 

all designated motorized vehicle routes within 

the SRMA.

Tule Creek ACEC is discussed in Section

2.3.2.2.2.1.

SCRMA and sites allocated for public use are 

discussed in the Cultural Resources Section

2.3.2.2.2.4.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No-cross country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes.

Close the fenced part of the Tule Creek ACEC 

to vehicle use.

Build hardened walking trails to public use 

cultural sites within the Lake Pleasant/Agua 

Fria SCRMA.

Implementation Actions

Develop a comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management Plan to 

manage for single-use, multi-use hiking, 

equestrian, and OHV routes within the Castle 

Hot Springs Management Unit. This plan will 

implement the designated route system.

2.3.2.2.3 Hassayampa 

Management Unit

The Hassayampa MU has the Town of 

Wickenburg at its center. It is bounded on the 

east by Prescott National Forest and the Castle 

Hot Springs MU, and on the west by the 

Harquahala Mountain MU. The MU's southern 

edge is south of the Vulture Mountains, and its 

boundaries extend north past Yarnell (Map 2-

27). The MU contains the following lands:

181,910 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

130,580 acres of Arizona State land, 

50,610 acres of private land, and

460 acres of county-administered lands 

in both Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. 

Vision

During the planning process, local citizens 

expressed their concerns and vision for the 

future of the Hassayampa MU A diverse group 

of Wickenburg residents is engaged in a 

collective effort to conserve the ecological, 

cultural, open space, and recreation values of the 

Wickenburg area, so that Wickenburg remains a 

place where people want to live, work, and 

recreate. Strong citizen stewardship and land 

use ethics help to preserve health, diversity, and 

productivity of the natural landscapes in the 

area. Partnerships between BLM, Public, and 

Private Entities, including Maricopa and 

Yavapai Counties, the City of Wickenburg, and 

other government or non-governmental 

organizations, promote the long-term

sustainability of the area and collaborate in 

management of public lands in the Management 

Unit.

A system of high-quality equestrian trails 

surrounds Wickenburg to buffer the area from 

urban sprawl and preserve the open-space value 

of local landscape. This trail system affords 

many opportunities for recreation enthusiasts 

and serves to enhance the lifestyle, culture, and 

culture history of community residents.

Properly managed and marketed quality 

recreation and tourism activities are offered 

throughout the MU which promote conservation 

and a strong land ethic, while protecting the 

natural resources and cultural heritage of the 

MU.
Chapter 2

89

The MU is managed with an emphasis on the 

values of open space, scenic and visual quality, 

and cultural and biological assets. The lands 

within the MU are managed for multiple uses, 

including mining, livestock grazing and OHV 

use.

2.3.2.2.3.1 Special Designations

Current Special Area Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with management actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section of 

this chapter.

Back Country Byways 

Constellation Mine Road

Desired Future Condition

The back country byway would provide a 

vehicle-based, back-country experience with 

amenities to heighten visitors‘ experiences, to 

educate, and to inform visitors about interesting 

natural and cultural features along the route.

Visitors could expect the road to be occasionally 

difficult and settings to be remote. The road 

might not be accessible to all classes of 

vehicles. High clearance might be needed to 

traverse the whole route. Establish and maintain 

a semi-primitive motorized recreation setting 1⁄2 

mile to either side of the road's centerline.

Management Actions 

Evaluate and nominate the Constellation Mine 

Road for potential designation as a national back 

country byway. The public portions of this road 

would be maintained at a BLM Maintenance 

Intensity standard of Level 3  ̳Medium‘ (BLM 

Roads and Trails Terminology Report and be 

passable by high-clearance vehicles.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.3.6.

Secure easements and rights-of-way where 

needed to ensure long-term public access along 

Constellation Mine Road.

Interpret the route‘s historical features, including 

original road construction structures; mining 

properties; mining districts; and historic 

homesteads, settlements, and ranching history.

Install directional, safety, and interpretive 

signing to enhance public use, enjoyment, and 

stewardship of the route.

Administrative Actions

Establish a friends group to maintain, monitor, 

and help interpret and present the route as well 

as the area‘s natural and human history.

2.3.2.2.3.2 Lands and Realty

Lands would not be disposed of within the 

Hassayampa MU.

2.3.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources

No allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Hassayampa MU.

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 –

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas and in Section

2.7.3.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area section. 

2.3.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocations

Wickenburg/Vulture SCRMA and 

Weaver/Octave SCRMA

Desired Future Condition 

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 
Chapter 2

90

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these 

objectives and management actions. Selected 

sites are interpreted to further public knowledge, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of cultural heritage 

values. 

Management Actions

A combination of some or all of following and 

other actions could be implemented at selected 

sites:

building visitor facilities such as parking 

areas, platforms, restrooms, picnic 

tables, benches, or trash receptacles, 

installing signs along routes and trails to 

direct visitors to interpreted sites, 

building hardened walking trails, 

installing interpretive signs and register 

boxes, and/or

preparing brochures and related 

educational materials or programs. 

Actions could be taken to stabilize, repair, and 

maintain sites in good condition.

Commercial and noncommercial group tours, to 

sites allocated to public use, could be authorized 

with protective stipulations in accordance 

with BLM‘s regulations and, provisions of 

special recreation permits.

Administrative Actions

Sites for public use would be selected by 

considering the following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

site condition and the feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to 

withstand visitation , 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would 

participate in developing sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. Historic properties for heritage 

tourism would be developed to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.3.2.2.3.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Stanton SRMA 

Desired Future Condition

Provide diverse recreation experiences while 

improving unacceptable environmental 

impacts from the following recreation:

excessive and unregulated camping, 

activities of prospecting clubs, and

motorized and other recreation uses. 

Maintain a variety of recreation settings and 

opportunities with emphasis on semi-primitive 

motorized and roaded-natural settings.

Management Actions

Locate and develop trailheads, staging/camping 

areas, and other facilities.

Designate a diverse network of motorized 

vehicle routes open to a range of OHV 

experiences and challenges.
Chapter 2

91

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 2 per year.

Install informational, educational, and 

interpretive kiosks and trail signs where needed. 

Placement of interpretive signs along the 

Stanton-Octave-Yarnell road, as proposed under 

the Lower Gila North MFP, would be consistent 

with this management action.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.3.6.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where 

assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

define detailed desired conditions, 

define standards, and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Land Use Allocation

Yarnell SRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

This site is one of the most valued in Arizona for 

launching successful long-distance, nonpowered flights. Maintain long-term public 

access to the Yarnell hang gliding launching 

area (Map 2-32). In addition, maintain the 

landing areas and keep approaches to landing 

areas as free of flight hazards as possible.

Management Actions

Retain in public ownership Sections 22, 23, and 

27 and all landing zones below Yarnell Hill.

Acquire legal public access to the Yarnell Hang 

Gliding launching area through easements, 

rights-of-way, or land acquisition.

Acquire the Arizona State Trust Land parcel 

southwest of Yarnell containing Fool‘s Gulch 

(Section 22) through purchase, legislation, or 

exchange.

Prohibit new overhead power lines, phone lines, 

or communication facilities within 1 mile of 

launching and identified landing zones.

Land Use Allocation

Wickenburg SRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

Establish a system of high-quality equestrian 

trails surrounding Wickenburg. The system will 

buffer the area from urban sprawl and preserve 

the open space value of the local landscape.

This trail system would offer multiple 

opportunities for all recreation enthusiasts and 

enhance the lifestyle, cultural experience, and 

understanding of the local culture.

Offer properly managed and marketed quality 

recreation and tourism promoting conservation 

and a strong land ethic and protecting the natural 

resources and cultural heritage of the 

Wickenburg SRMA.

Manage the area of the proposed SRMA for a 

DFC that emphasizes values of open space, 

scenic and visual quality, and cultural and 

biological assets. Manage the lands within the 

SRMA for multiple uses, including livestock 

grazing and OHV uses.

Emphasize and maintain a variety of recreation 

settings and opportunities, including rural, 

roaded-natural, semi-primitive motorized, semiprimitive non-motorized, and associated 

experiences for residents, tourists, and winter 

visitors.

Management Actions

Locate and develop a non-motorized trailhead 

for the Red Top Trail System for these purposes:
Chapter 2

92

meeting the high demand for nonmotorized recreation, 

vehicle parking, 

unloading animals, 

overnight camping, 

event operations, 

informational signing, 

dust abatement, and

health and safety.

Limit to 20 acres the area of exposed barren soil.

Locate and develop an ATV and a motorcycle 

route network in the Red Top Trail area to give 

the local community motorized recreation 

opportunities to shift motorized use from the 

designated non-motorized trails. Use existing 

designated motorized vehicle routes and create 

new routes less than 50 inches wide, if 

necessary, to meet the objective.

Prohibit motorized competitive races in the 

SRMA. 

Locate and develop at least one parking area of 3 

acres or less for OHV parking and unloading.

Limit to 5 acres the area of exposed barren soil. 

Maintain and upgrade the non-motorized 

Vulture Peak Trail by rerouting segments of the 

trail and installing a restroom at the lower 

trailhead.

Acquire the 19,396 acres of Arizona State land 

within the SRMA. Prioritize and pursue 

acquisition using the criteria in the Lands and 

Realty discussion of the Management Common 

to Both Planning Areas section of Chapter 2.

Lands will be acquired according to 

the following priorities: 

maintaining access and securing trail 

alignments, 

enhancing recreation opportunities, 

preserving scenery and open space, and

conserving riparian values. 

Develop special facilities for horse camping in 

the area south of Vulture Peak and south of 

Congress. These facilities could provide water 

for horses, electrical hookups for trailers, and 

more primitive horse camping facilities.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.3.6.

Administrative Actions

Collaborate with a diverse group of Wickenburg 

citizens to conserve the ecological, cultural, 

open space and recreation values of the 

Wickenburg area.

Write a comprehensive Travel Management Plan 

to develop management for single-use, multi-use 

hiking, equestrian, and OHV routes for the 

SRMA.

Land Use Allocation

San Domingo SRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a Sonoran Desert wash and upland 

environment suitable for an array of motorized 

and non-motorized uses. Manage for semiprimitive motorized and some roaded-natural 

settings.

Provide opportunities for the following 

while protecting the natural and cultural 

resources in the area:

intensive camping, 

OHV activities, 

equestrian use, 

recreation activities of prospecting 

clubs, 

event operations, and

motorized single and two-track routes 

for general motorized recreation use and 

competitive races. 

Management Actions 

Locate and develop trailheads, staging and 

camping areas, and other facilities as needed for 
Chapter 2

93

recreation activities. Limit to 10 acres the total 

area of exposed barren soil.

Limit the number of motorized 

competitive races to 2 per year.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.3.6.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social

impacts of recreation activities 

define desired conditions and standards 

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses 

Land Use Allocation

Vulture Mine SRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a Sonoran Desert landscape suitable for 

intensive motorized single and two-track routes 

for general motorized recreation use, 

commercial use, organized OHV events, and 

competitive races.

Emphasize and maintain the current array of 

roaded natural and semi-primitive, motorized 

settings.

Preserve the mining and settlement history of the 

Vulture City Cemetery.

Management Actions

Locate at least 20 miles of motorized single and 

two-track routes for competitive races to provide 

a unique array of challenges for truck, buggy, 

ATV, and motorcycle competitive racing.

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 4 per year.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.3.6.

Interpret and develop the Vulture City Cemetery 

for public use.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Land Use Allocation

All remaining land within the Management 

Unit would be allocated to an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

2.3.2.2.3.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative B throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-15. 

Within the Hassayampa Management Unit:

the Wickenburg SRMA would be 

allocated to VRM Class III in areas 

where rural and roaded-natural 

settings would be desired, and Class II 

where semi-primitive motorized and 

semi-primitive non-motorized 

settings would be desired, 

the San Domingo, Stanton, and the 

Vulture Mine SRMAs would 
Chapter 2

94

be allocated to VRM Class III 

objectives, 

the Hassayampa River Canyon 

Wilderness would continue to 

be allocated as VRM Class I, 

utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV, and 

in areas not listed above, VRM 

classes would be as portrayed on Map 2-

15. 

2.3.2.2.3.7 Mineral Resource

Management

The Hassayampa MU would have no mineral 

withdrawals or closures. 

2.3.2.2.3.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Hassayampa Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16). 

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

SRMAs are discussed in detail in the Recreation 

Resource Section 2.3.2.2.3.5.

The Stanton SRMA would include a diverse 

network of motorized vehicle routes open to a 

range of OHV experiences and challenges.

The Wickenburg SRMA would include a system 

of high-quality equestrian trails surrounding 

Wickenburg. Management actions for this 

SRMA would include:

Locate and develop a non-motorized 

trails and a trailhead for the Red Top 

Trail System within the SRMA. 

Locate and develop an ATV and a 

motorcycle route network in the Red 

Top Trail area to provide motorized 

recreation opportunities. 

The San Domingo SRMA would provide a 

managed Sonoran Desert wash and upland 

environment suitable for an array of motorized 

and non-motorized uses.

The Vulture Mine SRMA would 

provide intensive motorized single and two-track 

routes for general motorized recreation 

opportunities, commercial use, organized OHV 

events and competitive races. Locate at least 20 

miles of motorized single and two-track routes 

for competitive races to provide a unique array 

of challenges for truck, buggy, ATV, and 

motorcycle competitive racing.

Discussion of SCRMAs with sites allocated to 

Public Use can be found in the Cultural 

Resources Section 2.3.2.2.3.4.

Discussion of the Constellation Mine Road Back 

Country Byway can be found in the Special 

Area Designations Section 2.3.2.2.3.1.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes.

Maintain and upgrade the non-motorized 

Vulture Peak Trail by rerouting segments of the 

trail.

Consider building hardened walking trails to 

historic and prehistoric sites within the 

Wickenburg/Vulture SCRMA and 

Weaver/Octave SCRMA, for interpretation 

education and visitation.

The Constellation Mine Road Back Country 

Byway would be maintained to a BLM 

Maintenance Intensity standard of Level 3 

 ̳Medium‘ (BLM Roads and Trails Terminology 

Report), passable by high-clearance 

vehicles. Easements and rights-of-way would be 

secured where needed to ensure long-term 

public access along Constellation Mine Road.
Chapter 2

95

Implementation Actions

Develop a comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management Plan to 

manage for single-use, multi-use hiking, 

equestrian, and OHV routes within the 

Hassayampa Management Unit and associated 

SRMAs. This plan will implement the 

designated route system.

2.3.2.2.4 Harquahala 

Management Unit

The Harquahala MU under Alternative B would 

be bounded on the east by the Hassayampa MU 

and would extend west to the Phoenix District

boundary near the town of Wenden. The MU's 

southern boundary would follow the BLM 

property line north and west of Tonopah. The 

northern boundary would also follow the BLM 

property line south of State Route 60, which 

runs west of Wickenburg, through Aguila and 

Wenden (Map 2-28). The MU would contain 

the following lands:

401,680 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

31,970 acres of Arizona State land, and

7,710 acres of private land. 

2.3.2.2.4.1 Special Designations

Current Special Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with management actions described in Section

2.7.3.1 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section of 

this chapter.

No new Special Designations would 

be proposed within the Harquahala MU in 

Alternative B.

2.3.2.2.4.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative B proposes no lands for

disposal within this MU. 

Communication Sites

The Harquahala Peak communication site is the 

only designated communication site within this 

MU. New communication facilities would be 

limited to existing designated communication 

sites.

2.3.2.2.4.3 Biological Resources

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

Land Use Allocation

Harquahala Mountains WHA 

Desired Future Condition

The current geographic distribution, plant 

diversity, and richness of the Chaparral and 

Sonoran Desert scrub vegetation communities in 

this desert mountain landscape would be 

maintained or enhanced. Unfragmented wildlife 

habitat would provide adequate forage, cover, 

and access to water for healthy wildlife 

populations.

Management Actions

New grazing improvements in Browns Canyon 

and the Inner Basin would be prohibited or 

designed to avoid increasing livestock use or 

concentrated livestock use.

BLM would acquire available State and private 

lands upon agreement with land owners.

Vehicle routes that conflict with maintenance of 

wildlife habitat could be closed, limited, or 

mitigated to ensure achieving of the DFC.
Chapter 2

96

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts.

2.3.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Harquahala Mountains SCRMA

Desired Future Condition 

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these 

objectives and management actions. Selected 

sites are interpreted to further public knowledge, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of cultural heritage 

values. 

Management Actions

A combination of some or all of the following 

and other actions could be implemented at 

selected sites:

building visitor facilities such as parking 

areas, platforms, restrooms, picnic 

tables, benches, or trash receptacles, 

installing signs along routes and trails to 

direct visitors to interpreted sites, 

building hardened walking trails, 

installing interpretive signs and register 

boxes, and/or

preparing brochures and related 

educational materials or programs. 

Actions to stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in 

good condition would be taken as needed. 

Commercial and noncommercial group tours, to 

sites allocated to public use, could be authorized 

and conducted under protective stipulations that 

are in accordance with BLM‘s regulations and 

provisions of, special recreation permits.

Administrative Actions

Specific sites for public use would be selected 

by considering the following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development. 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

condition of the site and the feasibility 

of stabilizing selected areas or features 

to withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with 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. 

The BLM‘s recreation program would 

participate in developing sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. Historic properties for heritage 

tourism would be developed to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.3.2.2.4.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

The entire Management Unit would be allocated 

as an Extensive Recreation Management Area.

Management Actions

A Trans-Harquahala Trail would be designated 

and developed to traverse the mountain range 

from south to north over the summit
Chapter 2

97

Implementation Actions

Select, plan, and develop at least one staging and 

camping area to meet motorized and nonmotorized recreation demand. Have this 

area provide accommodation for the following:

parking, 

unloading OHVs and horses, 

overnight camping, and

large organized event operations.

Development may include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

hitching posts, 

troughs for water hauled to the site, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement.

Exposed, barren soil would not exceed 15 acres.

Site-specific analysis, site design, and allowable 

site uses would address the potential effects on 

the objectives of the wildlife movement corridor.

2.3.2.2.4.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

In Alternative B for the Harquahala Management 

Unit, 56,040 acres as portrayed on Map 2-

31 would be allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics.

Desired Future Condition 

In addition to the DFC and management actions 

described in the Wilderness Characteristics 

discussion of the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas section of this chapter, the 

following apply to this allocation.

The area would be managed mainly for an 

emphasis on non-motorized recreation 

experiences, open space, and natural landscapes 

to complement the region's diverse recreation 

opportunities. Recreation settings of semiprimitive non-motorized would be maintained 

throughout the area. Natural landscape values 

and remoteness would be maintained. 

The current mix of motorized and nonmotorized recreation settings, associated 

landscapes, and experiences would be 

maintained.

Management Actions

Recreation management would be for settings of 

semi-primitive non-motorized with semiprimitive motorized along boundaries 

and designated routes.

Revegetating routes (also called "reclaiming" 

routes), washes, and single-track vehicle routes 

would be closed. Unnecessary tertiary routes 

would also be closed to enhance scenic values, 

wildlife habitat, solitude, and remoteness values; 

and to expand primitive recreational settings and 

opportunities. Routes that access wildlife 

waters, livestock facilities, and other authorized 

facilities requiring periodic access would remain 

open.

Motorized competitive races would not be 

permitted. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.4.7.

Disposal of mineral materials or vegetation sales 

would be prohibited.

Recreation related actions suggested for the 

allocated areas can be found in Section

2.3.2.2.4.5.

Administrative Actions

Site-specific standards would be established to 

maintain proper levels of recreationrelated disturbance allowed within each desired 

recreation setting.
Chapter 2

98

2.3.2.2.4.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative B throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 as portrayed on Map 2-15. 

Within the Harquahala Management Unit:

the existing Harquahala Mountains, 

Hummingbird Springs, and Big Horn 

Mountains Wilderness Areas would 

continue to be allocated to VRM Class I 

objectives, 

lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be allocated to 

VRM class II objectives, 

utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV, and

areas not listed above would be 

allocated to VRM classes as portrayed 

on Map 2-15. 

2.3.2.2.4.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to mineral 

material disposal.

2.3.2.2.4.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Harquahala Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16). 

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in Section

2.3.2.2.4.6.

SCRMAs with sites allocated to public use are 

discussed in the Cultural Resources Section

2.3.2.2.4.4.

Management Actions

Limit all vehicles to designated routes. No crosscountry motorized travel would be permitted 

except in cases of emergency or for approved 

administrative purposes.

Close all revegetating routes (also called 

"reclaiming" routes), washes, and single-track 

vehicle routes within 56,040 acres (Map 2-

31) allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. Unnecessary tertiary routes 

would also be closed. Routes to wildlife waters, 

livestock facilities, and other authorized 

facilities requiring periodic access would remain 

open.

Designate a Trans-Harquahala Trail.

Consider providing a variety of hardened 

walking trails to prehistoric and historic sites 

within the Harquahala Mountains SCRMA for 

interpretation, education, and public visitation.

2.3.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management 

Unit

The Harcuvar MU encompasses the easternmost 

end of the Harcuvar Mountains within the PD's 

administrative area. Most of the Harcuvar 

Mountains are administered by BLM's Lake 

Havasu Field Office. The Harcuvar MU is 

bounded on the west and north by the boundary 

between the Phoenix and Lake Havasu Field 

Offices, and on the east and south by the 

boundary between BLM and non-BLMadministered lands (Map 2-29). The MU 

contains the following lands:

53,200 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

6,280 acres of Arizona State land, and

3,360 acres of private land.
Chapter 2

99

Vision 

The MU‘s natural landscape and open space 

values are maintained. Recreation opportunities, 

scenic backdrops, and access to recreation 

features beyond the planning area boundary in 

adjoining areas are available to users.

Recreation settings and opportunities within the 

Management Unit are maintained. The 

Harcuvar MU is mainly an extension of the 

Harcuvar Mountains, which are managed by 

BLM's Lake Havasu Field Office. Management 

actions are closely coordinated with that field 

office.

2.3.2.2.5.1 Special Designations

No new Special Designations would be 

proposed within this MU in Alternative B.

2.3.2.2.5.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

No lands have been identified for disposal.

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites lie within 

this MU.

2.3.2.2.5.3 Biological Resources

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

2.3.2.2.5.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Harcuvar Mountains SCRMA

Desired Future Condition

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these 

objectives and management actions. Selected 

sites are interpreted to further public knowledge, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of cultural heritage 

values. 

Management Actions

A combination of the some or all of following 

and other actions could be implemented at 

selected sites:

building visitor facilities such as parking 

areas, platforms, restrooms, picnic 

tables, benches, or trash receptacles, 

installing signs along routes and trails to 

direct visitors to interpreted sites, 

building hardened walking trails, 

installing interpretive signs and register 

boxes, and/or

preparing brochures and related 

educational materials or programs. 

Actions to stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in 

good condition would be initiated as needed.

Commercial and noncommercial group tours, to 

sites allocated to public use, would be 

authorized and conducted under protective 

stipulations that are in accordance with BLM‘s 

regulations and provisions of special recreation 

permits.

Administrative Actions

Sites for public use would be selected by 

considering the following factors:

presence of aboveground features that 

are of interest to the public and are 

amenable to interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 
Chapter 2

100

condition of the site and the feasibility 

of stabilizing selected areas or features 

to withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would 

participate in developing sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. Historic properties for heritage 

tourism would be developed to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.3.2.2.5.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocations

The entire Management Unit would 

be allocated as an Extensive Recreation 

Management Area.

2.3.2.2.5.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative B throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-15. 

Within the Harcuvar Management Unit:

the area along the Harcuvar Mountains 

would be allocated to VRM Class III 

the rest of the Management Unit would 

be allocated to VRM Class IV 

2.3.2.2.5.7 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Harcuvar Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16). 

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

SCRMAs with sites allocated to public use are 

discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.5.4 Cultural 

Resources.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes.

Consider developing hardened walking trails 

to prehistoric and historic sites within 

the Harcuvar Mountains SCRMA for 

interpretation, education, and public visitation.

2.3.2.2.6 Resource Allocations 

Not Within a Management Unit

2.3.2.2.6.1 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Galena Gulch SCRMA: (Map 2-30) 

Desired Future Condition

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these 

objectives and management actions. Selected 
Chapter 2

101

sites are interpreted to further public knowledge, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of cultural heritage 

values. 

Management Actions

A combination of the some or all of following 

and other actions could be implemented at 

selected sites:

building visitor facilities such as parking 

areas, platforms, restrooms, picnic 

tables, benches, or trash receptacles, 

installing signs along routes and trails to 

direct visitors to interpreted sites, 

building hardened walking trails, 

installing interpretive signs and register 

boxes, and/or

creating brochures and related 

educational materials or programs. 

Actions to stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in 

good condition would be implemented as 

needed.

Commercial and noncommercial group tours, to 

sites allocated to public use, would be 

authorized and conducted under protective 

stipulations that are in accordance with BLM's 

regulations and provisions of special recreation 

permits.

Administrative Actions

Sites for public use would be selected by 

considering the following: 

presence of aboveground features that 

are of interest to the public and are 

amenable to interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

site condition and feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to 

withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would help 

develop sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. Historic properties for heritage 

tourism would be developed to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.3.2.2.6.2 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Skull Valley SRMA: (Map 2-30)

Desired Future Condition

The landscape character would be maintained, 

and motorized access to routes in Prescott 

National Forest would also be maintained.

Management Actions 

Motorized and mechanized uses would be on 

designated motorized routes.

Management of the Skull Valley SRMA would 

be transferred to the adjacent Prescott National 

Forest upon agreement by BLM and the U.S. 

Forest Service.

Land Use Allocation

North Black Canyon Trail SRMA: (Map 2-30)

Desired Future Condition 
Chapter 2

102

The Black Canyon Trail from Highway 69 north 

and east would be completed to connect with 

trails in Prescott National Forest. A nonmotorized experience along or near the historic 

sheep driveway would be provided. The trail 

and any ancillary facilities would generally be 

along the corridor established by secretarial 

order in 1969. 

Management Actions

Rights-of-way would be acquired for the trail 

and facilities to preserve their access and longterm character.

Easements or rights-of-way would be acquired 

on lands where the trail or facilities must cross 

or be built on non-Federal lands.

Any future land tenure action will recognize the 

trail and facilities and will retain a 1⁄4 mile 

corridor (1/8 mile on each side) along the trail 

and any ancillary facility, as well as public 

access to the trails and facilities by easement, 

right-of-way, deed restriction, or other suitable 

means.

Administrative Actions

Establish a citizen focus group to help with trail 

and facility sites, designs, and management. 

With citizen's input, write a long-term SRMA 

management plan. Exact locations of the trail or 

any ancillary facilities would be determined in 

conjunction with the Yavapai County Trails 

Committee and the Trail and Facilities Citizen 

Group.

Land Use Allocation

All other BLM-managed lands outside of 

Management Units in this Alternative would 

be allocated to an Extensive Recreation 

Management Area.

2.3.2.2.6.3 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative B throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-15.

2.3.2.2.6.4 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

All areas not within management units would 

be allocated as limited use areas, with motorized 

and mechanized vehicle uses limited to 

designated routes (Map 2-16). 

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

SRMAs are discussed in Recreation and Public 

Access Section 2.3.2.2.6.2. 

SCRMAs with sites allocated to public use are 

discussed in the Cultural Resources Section

2.3.2.2.6.1.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes.

In the Skull Valley SRMA: (Map 2-30) 

motorized vehicle travel would be restricted to 

lower speeds near private lands with travel only 

on designated motorized routes.

In the North Black Canyon Trail SRMA: (Map 

2-30) the Black Canyon Trail would connect to 

trails in Prescott National Forest.

Consider developing hardened walking trails 

within the Galena Gulch SCRMA to prehistoric 

and historic sites for interpretation, education, 

and public visitation.
Chapter 2

103

2.4 Alternative C

The following discussion and the DFCs, land 

use allocations, and management actions 

described in the Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives section of Chapter 2, 

comprise the total proposed Alternative C. 

2.4.1 Agua Fria National 

Monument

The overall theme of Alternative C is to allow 

visitors to experience the natural landscape and 

cultural resource setting of Agua Fria National 

Monument. Management decisions will focus 

on protecting the monument's resources while 

accommodating visitor experiences. Such 

management would result in limited access and 

establishing a larger Back Country RMZ than 

under Alternative B to preserve the natural 

landscape and enhance primitive recreation 

opportunities. Alternative C would also 

emphasize managing cultural resources for more 

limited public use. Upland grazing areas would 

remain similar to those under current 

management, but riparian areas would be closed 

to grazing. Managing natural and cultural 

resources would generally be more restrictive 

than under Alternative B.

2.4.1.1 Special Designations

Alternative C for Agua Fria National 

Monument would designate four ACECs, shown 

on Map 2-33, for managing the Gila 

chub. Alternative C would also remove the 

designation of the existing Perry Mesa and Larry 

Canyon ACECs because the national 

monument‘s proclamation (Appendix A) 

provides for more protection and management 

across a more extensive landscape than the 

ACEC designation.

Alternative C also proposes studying eligibility 

of more waterways for WSR designations and 

evaluating a back country byway.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Silver Creek ACEC (350 acres)

Relevance

Silver Creek ACEC would protect a rare riparian 

deciduous forest.

Importance

The habitat supports a federally listed 

endangered native fish (Gila chub) and provides 

special features of value for studies of desert 

riparian systems. The area is listed as a critical 

habitat for the Gila chub.

Desired Future Condition

The integrity of the riparian area and endangered 

species habitat quality are maintained and 

protected from degradation.

Management Actions

Motorized vehicle routes would be closed or 

mitigated to avoid degrading riparian values or 

habitat for Gila chub. 

Livestock grazing would be prohibited.

Indian Creek ACEC (330 acres)

Relevance

Indian Creek ACEC would protect a rare 

riparian deciduous forest.

Importance

Habitat supports a federally endangered native 

fish (Gila chub) and provides special features of 

value for studies of desert riparian systems. The 

area is as a critical habitat for the Gila chub.
Chapter 2

104

Desired Future Condition

The integrity of the riparian area and endangered 

species habitat quality are maintained and 

protected from degradation.

Management Actions

Lands along Indian Creek would be acquired 

from willing non-Federal land holders.

Motorized vehicle routes would be closed or 

mitigated to avoid degrading riparian values or 

habitat for Gila chub.

Livestock grazing would be prohibited.

Larry Canyon ACEC (50 acres)

Relevance

Rare riparian deciduous forest

Importance

Habitat supports a federally endangered native 

fish (Gila chub) and provides special features of 

value for studies of desert riparian systems. The 

area is listed as a critical habitat for the Gila 

chub.

Desired Future Condition

The integrity of the riparian area and endangered 

species habitat quality are maintained and 

protected from degradation.

Management Actions

Motorized vehicle routes would be closed or 

mitigated to avoid degrading riparian values or 

Gila chub habitat.

This area would be unavailable for livestock 

grazing.

Lousy Canyon ACEC (80 acres)

Relevance

Rare riparian deciduous forest

Importance

Habitat supports the federally listed Gila 

topminnow, Gila chub, and desert pupfish and 

provides special features of value for studies of 

desert riparian systems. The area is a critical 

habitat for the Gila chub.

Desired Future Condition

The integrity of the riparian area and endangered 

species habitat quality are maintained and 

protected from degradation.

Management Actions

Motorized vehicle routes would be closed or 

mitigated to avoid degrading riparian values or 

habitat for Gila chub.

This area would be unavailable for livestock 

grazing.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Tributaries to the Agua Fria River would be 

studied to determine eligibility and suitability

for wild and scenic river designation in 

accordance with the WSR Act (Map 2-33).

Back Country Byways

Evaluate and nominate a back country byway on 

Bloody Basin Road if standards and 

requirements are met (Map 2-33).

Desired Future Condition 

The back country byway would provide a 

vehicle-based recreation experience with 

amenities to heighten visitors‘ experiences and 

to educate, and inform visitors about interesting 

natural and cultural features along the route.
Chapter 2

105

Visitors could expect the road to occasionally be 

difficult and settings to be remote. The road 

might not be accessible to all classes of 

vehicle. High-clearance vehicles might be 

needed to travel the whole route. A recreation 

setting of semi-primitive motorized would be 

maintained for 1⁄2 mile to either side of the road's 

centerline.

Management Actions

Road maintenance standards would conform to a 

BLM Maintenance Intensity standard of Level 3 

 ̳Medium‘ (BLM Roads and Trails Terminology 

Report) passable by high-clearance vehicles.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.1.6.

Easements and rights-of-way would be secured 

where needed to ensure long-term public access. 

Monument features along the route would be 

interpreted, including prehistoric cultural 

features, historic homesteads, settlements, and 

ranching history.

Directional, safety, and interpretive signs would 

be installed to enhance public use, enjoyment, 

and stewardship of the area.

Administrative Actions

A cooperative and a collaborative site plan 

would be developed with landowners and other 

agencies affected by the byway designation.

2.4.1.2 Lands and Realty

2.4.1.2.1 Utility and 

Transportation Corridors

The Black Canyon utility corridor would 

be eliminated from the monument. All 

existing rights-of-way and prior existing 

rights would continue to be honored.

2.4.1.3 Biological Resources

Alternative C for the Agua Fria National 

Monument would designate two Wildlife 

Habitat Areas (WHA) for enhancing pronghorn 

habitat and four ACECs for managing biological 

resources, especially Gila chub. The current 

Larry Canyon ACEC would be dropped because 

the Monument Proclamation (Appendix A) 

provides more protection and management 

across a more extensive landscape.

The ACECs are described in the Special Area 

Designations section of Alternative B. The 

management actions for the WHAs, which are 

shown in Map 2-34, are outlined below.

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

Land Use Allocation

Pronghorn Fawning Habitat WHA.

Pronghorn Movement Corridor WHA.

Desired Future Condition

Unfragmented wildlife habitat that provides 

adequate forage, cover, and access to water for 

healthy wildlife populations, especially 

pronghorn.

Management Actions

Vehicle routes that cross known pronghorn 

movement corridors with a type and a volume of 

use that modifies pronghorn behavior in ways 

that fragment their habitat, will be closed 

or mitigated to minimize the fragmentation.

Prescribed fire would continue to be used to 

improve pronghorn habitat.
Chapter 2

106

New recreation sites would not be developed in 

pronghorn movement corridors.

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts.

2.4.1.4 Cultural Resources

Alternative C would develop a moderate 

number of interpretive improvements to enhance 

visitor experiences by increasing access to a few 

archaeological sites and developing interpretive 

information about the national monument's 

cultural resources.

Areas would be allocated to SCRMAs focused 

on varying levels of public use as shown 

in Table 2-4 and on Map 2-35.

For descriptions of associated actions, see the 

Cultural Resources section of Management 

Common to Agua Fria National 

Monument. High use represents the most 

intensive degree of interpretive development, 

and moderate use involves less intensive 

development of access and interpretive 

facilities. All areas of the monument not shown 

as high or moderate use SCRMAs on Map 2-

35 would be considered areas of low public use 

that are not available for on-the-ground 

interpretive development or commercial tours.

2.4.1.5 Recreation Resources

In Alternative C, the entire monument would be 

allocated to a Special Recreation Management 

Area with three Recreation Management Zones 

within it. These zones would include a Back 

Country RMZ of 28,200 acres to manage and 

maintain the natural landscape character in the 

Agua Fria River Canyon and tributaries, 

and Perry Mesa south of Bloody Basin 

Road (Map 2-35). A Passage RMZ of 700 acres 

would be allocated 100 feet on each side of the 

centerline of designated routes that pass through 

or enter into the Back Country RMZ, to manage 

(1) vehicle-based visitation and (2) authorized 

uses such as grazing permits. The rest of the 

monument would be allocated as a Front 

Country RMZ of 42,000 acres, where more 

focus could be placed on recreation and 

interpretive opportunities. General descriptions 

of the Front Country, Back Country, and 

Passage RMZs, including Desired Future 

Conditions common to all Alternatives, are in 

the Management Common to Agua Fria 

National Monument section of this document 

under the discussion in Section 2.7.2.7.

Land Use Allocation

Front Country Recreation Management Zone of 

42,000 acres

Desired Future Condition

See Desired Future Condition description in the 

Recreational Resources Section 2.7.2.7 of the 

Management Common to Agua Fria National 

Monument section of this chapter.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.4.1.6.

Table 2-4. Alternative C: Cultural Resource 

Public Use Areas

Level of Public Use Locations/Sites

High Pueblo la Plata and Fort 

Silver (Pueblo la Plata 

Complex) 

Moderate Baby Canyon Pueblo and 

Pueblo Pato;

Badger Springs rock art, 

Richinbar Ruin, the Rollie 

site, the Arrastra site, and 

Badger Pueblo 

The historic Teskey 

homestead near the Agua 

Fria River.

Low Public use of 

archaeological sites would 

be limited in all other areas 

not described above.
Chapter 2

107

SRPs and Concessions: 

Up to six SRPs would be 

authorized within the monument each 

year. These SRPs might include any 

combination of the following: 

o Commercial (e.g. jeep tours, 

outfitters), 

o Commercial special events, and

o Noncommercial special events. 

Issue permits and concessions to 

enhance visitor use, services, and visitor 

safety and enjoyment, providing these 

conform to monument values and 

objectives. BLM will consider 

concessions and permits on a case-bycase basis, basing its determinations on 

consistency with management objectives 

and a clearly demonstrated need. 

Dispersed Camping:

Camping permits could be required if 

resource damage occurs that inhibits 

achieving resource DFCs or threatens 

resources protected by proclamation, or 

if health and safety issues emerge. If 

damage continues, more 

limitations might be required, 

including temporary or permanent area 

closures, limiting camping to designated 

sites, or seasonal limitations or closures. 

Allow camping at designated sites only. 

Developed Campgrounds: 

Develop one campground at either 

Badger Springs or near the Bloody 

Basin Road outside the WHAs. 

Limit campsites to 20, with a picnic 

table, fire ring, and ramada provided at 

each site. 

Develop potable water if available. 

Provide restrooms to address health and 

sanitation issues. 

Campfires:

Prohibit campfires within 1⁄4 mile 

of High and Moderate public-use 

archaeological sites. 

Prohibit campfires at archaeological 

sites, including petroglyph (rock art) 

sites. 

Prohibit campfires within 1⁄4 mile of a 

developed campground. 

Within campgrounds, allow campfires 

only in manufactured campfire rings. 

Allow campfires at designated sites. 

Limit firewood collection to campfire 

use only. Firewood may consist of 

dead, down, and detached material.

To prevent resource damage, monitor 

vegetation for use and disturbance 

and temporarily or permanently suspend 

this use to prevent resource damage. 

Recreational Target Shooting: 

Recreational target shooting would be 

prohibited within the Front Country 

RMZ. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in 

Section 2.4.1.8. 

Land Use Allocation

Back Country Recreation Management Zone of 

28,200 acres 

Desired Future Condition

Maintain or enhance the natural landscape 

character of the Agua Fria River Canyon and 

tributaries (Map 2-35). See Desired Future 

Condition description in Section 2.7.2.7 of the 

Management Common to Agua Fria National 

Monument section of this chapter.
Chapter 2

108

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.4.1.6.

Maintain river crossings at Kelton Ranch, EZ 

Ranch, Horseshoe Ranch, and Cross Y Ranch.

SRPs and Concessions: 

Up to six SRPs would be 

authorized within the monument each 

year. These SRPs might include any 

combination of the following: 

o Commercial (e.g. jeep tours, 

outfitters), 

o Commercial special events, and

o Noncommercial special events. 

Issue permits and concessions to 

enhance visitor use, services, safety, and 

enjoyment, providing they conform 

to monument values and 

objectives. Evaluate concessions and 

permits on a case-by-case 

basis. Determinations would be made 

on consistency with management 

objectives and clearly demonstrated 

needs. 

Dispersed Camping:

Allow camping but limit it to certain 

designated areas if resource damage 

occurs. Camping permits could be 

required if resource damage occurs that 

inhibits achieving resource DFCs or 

threatens resources protected by 

proclamation, or if health and safety 

issues emerge. If damage continues, 

more limitations might be required, 

including temporary or permanent area 

closures, limiting camping to designated 

sites, or seasonal limitations or closures. 

Prohibit camping at archaeological sites, 

including at petroglyph (rock art) sites. 

Allow camping if at least 1⁄4 mile 

from High or Moderate use 

archaeological sites. 

Camping would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile from water sources "...containing 

water in such a place that wildlife or 

domestic stock will be denied access to 

the only reasonably available water 

(Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping). 

Campfires:

Allow campfires at dispersed sites. 

Prohibit campfires within 1⁄4 mile 

of High and Moderate public-use 

archaeological sites. 

Prohibit campfires within 200 

feet of archaeological sites, including 

petroglyph (rock art) sites. 

Prohibit campfires within 1⁄4 mile of a 

developed campground. 

Allow campfires only in existing 

disturbed areas. 

Allow campfires in existing campfire 

rings only. 

Limit firewood collection to campfire 

use only. Firewood may consist of 

dead, down, and detached material. To 

prevent resource damage, monitor 

vegetation for use and disturbance.

Temporarily or permanently suspend 

firewood collection to prevent resource 

damage. 

Recreational Target Shooting: 

Targets need to be of a type and material 

that will not produce litter and must be 

cleaned up after use. 

Spent shell casings have to be cleaned 

up after use. 

Unacceptable impacts to monument 

resources or public safety would result 

in further management actions, ranging 

from further restrictions to closure. 

Prohibit shooting within 1⁄2 mile of areas 

where people congregate, including 

trailheads, campgrounds, interpretive 

sites, kiosks, and other high-use sites. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use 
Chapter 2

109

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in 

Section 2.4.1.8.

Land Use Allocation

The Passage Recreation Management Zone 

would consist of 700 acres.

Desired Future Condition 

See Desired Future Condition description in 

Section 2.7.2.7 of the Management Common to 

Agua Fria National Monument section of this 

chapter.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.4.1.6. 

SRPs and Concessions: 

Up to six SRPs would be 

authorized within the monument each 

year. These SRPs might include any 

combination of the following: 

o Commercial (e.g. jeep tours, 

outfitters), 

o Commercial special events, and

o Noncommercial special events. 

Issue permits and concessions to 

enhance visitor use, services, and visitor 

safety and enjoyment, providing 

these conform to monument values and 

objectives. Consider concessions and 

permits on a case-by-case basis, with 

determinations based on consistency 

with management objectives and a 

clearly demonstrated need. 

Dispersed Camping:

Allow camping at designated sites only. 

Camping permits could be required if 

resource damage occurs that inhibits 

achieving resource DFCs or threatens 

resources protected by proclamation, or 

if health and safety issues emerge. If 

damage continues, more 

limitations might be required, 

including temporary or permanent area 

closures, limiting camping to designated 

sites, or seasonal limitations or closures. 

Prohibit camping on archaeological 

sites, including petroglyph (rock art) 

sites. 

Allow camping if at least 1⁄4 mile 

from High or Moderate public use 

archaeological sites. 

Camping would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile from water sources "...containing 

water in such a place that wildlife or 

domestic stock will be denied access to 

the only reasonably available water 

(Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping). 

Campfires: 

Prohibit campfires within 1⁄4 mile 

of High and Moderate public-use

archaeological sites.

Prohibit campfires at archaeological 

sites, including petroglyph (rock art) 

sites. 

Prohibit campfires within 1⁄4 mile of a 

developed campground. 

Limit firewood collecting to campfire 

use only. Firewood may consist of 

dead, down, and detached material. To 

prevent resource damage, monitor 

vegetation for use and disturbance.

Temporarily or permanently 

suspend firewood collecting to prevent 

resource damage. 

Recreational Target Shooting:

Targets need to be of a type and material 

that will not produce litter and must be 

cleaned up after use. 

Spent shell casings have to be cleaned 

up after use. 

Unacceptable impacts to monument 

resources and public safety would result 

in further management actions, ranging 

from further restrictions to closure. 
Chapter 2

110

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in 

Section 2.4.1.8.

Administrative Actions

Collect baseline data concerning recreational 

target shooting, to determine social and resource 

impact, to establish monitoring needs and 

frequencies, and to detect change. 

2.4.1.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative C throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-

36. Within the Agua Fria National Monument, 

the Front Country and Passage RMZs would be 

allocated to VRM Class III. The Back Country 

RMZ and 1/2 mile on each side of the proposed 

Bloody Basin Road Back Country Byway would 

be allocated to Class II objectives.

2.4.1.7 Rangeland Management

Land Use Allocation

Eleven grazing authorizations would continue to 

be administered within Agua Fria National 

Monument. Grazing would be prohibited in the 

monument's riparian areas (Map 2-37). On 

grazing allotments where riparian areas are 

unfenced, the entire pasture would be closed to 

grazing.

Desired Future Condition (DFC)

Watersheds are in properly functioning 

condition, including their upland, riparian, and 

aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions 

support infiltration, storage, and release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform.

Ecological processes are maintained to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities.

Within 3 years, riparian areas that did not meet 

Standard 2 of the Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Land Health Standards) 

because of livestock grazing would meet that 

standard.

Management Actions

For allotments where the public lands are 

unfenced from other lands, fencing and 

surveys would be required to establish the 

boundaries of the riparian areas and protect them 

from livestock grazing.

The loss of allotment acres because of the 

riparian restriction would result in current 

authorized livestock numbers being 

correspondingly reduced.

Fence construction and maintenance will follow 

guidance provided in BLM's handbook on 

Fencing No. 1741-1.

2.4.1.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The entire monument is allocated as limited to 

designated routes.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. Cross-country motorized travel is 

prohibited except in the case of an emergency or 

for approved administrative purposes.

Maintain river crossings at Kelton Ranch, EZ 

Ranch, Horseshoe Ranch, and Cross Y Ranch.

Within Front Country

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Recreation Use:
Chapter 2

111

Develop trails as needed to enhance 

resources and recreation experiences 

and to protect monument values. Any 

construction would be compatible with 

Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

Design trails to blend into the 

environment. 

Build loop, connector, and linear trails, 

depending on recreation, access, and 

resource objectives. 

Where appropriate, build trails to 

maintain connectivity to recreation 

opportunities such as hunting, equestrian

activities, hiking, and viewing cultural 

sites. 

Where appropriate, build trails to link 

with other connector trails beyond the 

monument's border. 

Explore opportunities to link networks 

of non-motorized trails within the 

monument to trails outside the 

monument on other BLM-managed 

lands, or in other adjacent jurisdictions, 

including Tonto and Prescott National 

Forests, Yavapai County, and local 

communities, where linkages are 

consistent with monument values and do 

not impair protection of monument 

resources. 

Place priority for developing nonmotorized trails on archaeological sites 

developed for interpretive use and 

visitation. 

Evaluate other non-motorized trails to 

enhance visitor access and enjoyment of 

monument resources. Such trails may 

include (1) self-guided nature and 

cultural resource trails, (2) trails to 

interpreted sites not accessible by 

vehicle, or (3) longer trails linking 

multiple sites for day or multiple-day 

trips. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

Evaluate new motorized vehicle 

routes on a case-by-case basis, with 

determinations based on protecting and 

enhancing monument values. 

Enhance existing routes north of Bloody 

Basin Road to provide greater motorized 

recreation opportunities. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 

All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in Section 2.7.2.10. 

Manage OHV access to provide for a 

variety of use 

experiences, including allowing public 

access to the monument's cultural and 

biological resources. 

Within Back Country

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Recreation Use: 

Develop trails as needed to enhance 

resources and recreational experiences 

and protect monument values. All 

construction would be compatible with 

Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

Design trails to blend into the 

environment. 

Build loop, connector, and linear trails, 

depending on recreation, access, and 

resource objectives. 

Where appropriate, build trails to 

maintain connectivity to recreational 

opportunities, such as hunting, hiking, 

equestrian activities, and viewing 

cultural sites. 

Where appropriate, build trails to link 

with other connector trails beyond the 

monument's border. 
Chapter 2

112

Explore opportunities to link networks 

of non-motorized trails within the 

monument to trails outside the 

monument on other BLM-managed 

lands, or on other adjacent jurisdictions, 

including Tonto and Prescott National 

Forests, Yavapai County, and local 

communities, where trail 

linkages conform to monument values 

and do not impair protection of 

monument resources. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

Build no new routes within the Back 

Country RMZ. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 

Manage the Back Country RMZ as a 

non-motorized area. 

Within Passage

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Recreational Use 

Develop trails as needed to enhance 

resources and recreational experiences, 

and protect monument values. All 

construction would be compatible with 

Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

Design trails to blend into the 

environment. 

Build loop, connector, and linear 

trails, depending on the established 

recreation, access, and resource 

objectives. 

Build trails to maintain connectivity 

to recreation opportunities, such as 

hunting, riding, and viewing cultural 

sites. 

Build trails to link with other connector 

trails beyond the monument's border. 

Explore opportunities to link networks 

of non-motorized and non-mechanized

trails within the monument to trails 

outside the monument on other BLMmanaged lands, or within other adjacent 

jurisdictions, including Tonto and 

Prescott National Forests, Yavapai 

County, and local communities, 

where trail linkages conform to 

monument values and do not impair 

protection of monument resources. 

Place the priority for developing nonmotorized trails on archaeological sites 

developed for interpretive use and 

visitation. 

Evaluate other non-motorized trails to 

enhance visitor access and enjoyment of 

monument resources. These trails may 

include (1) self-guided nature and 

cultural resource trails, (2) trails to 

interpreted sites not accessible by 

vehicle, or (3) longer trails linking 

multiple sites for day or multiple-day 

trips. 

Build non-motorized and nonmechanized trails to provide access to 

core use areas. Such trails could consist 

only of routes marked by low-impact 

fiberglass posts with minimal ground 

disturbance. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

All construction would be compatible 

with desired recreation settings. 

Motorized route construction would be 

considered only as mitigation for 

resource conflicts. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 
Chapter 2

113

All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in Section 2.7.2.10. 

Manage OHV access to provide for a 

variety of use experiences, especially to 

provide access for public visitation of 

the monument's cultural and biological 

resources. 

Implementation Actions

Public Access

An evaluation tree review process was used to 

establish a designated public access and route 

system to support resource objectives consistent 

with Alternative C and to protect monument 

resources. The results of the evaluation are 

shown on Map 2-38. A summary of the route 

status and quantity that would be designated is 

shown below.

Routes Open 123 miles

Routes Closed 48 miles

New Routes 6 miles

2.4.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area

Although Alternative C still places some 

emphasis on resource use and development, it 

places greater emphasis on more undeveloped 

opportunities. Some areas would undergo more 

protective management than that proposed under 

Alternative B. The result is limiting access, 

closing some areas to vehicles, and 

establishing an increased number and acreage of 

areas of critical environmental concerns 

(ACECs). In addition, there would be fewer 

cultural resources devoted to public use and a 

greater number of acres allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics. Grazing of uplands 

would remain similar to current management, 

but riparian areas would be closed to grazing.

Mining would be open in most areas, with 

restrictions in areas that are allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics and ACECs. Visual 

resource management (VRM) would be 

consistent with increased emphasis on resource 

protection. The management units (MUs) for 

Alternative C are shown on Map 2-39.

2.4.2.1 Management Applicable 

to the Entire BradshawHarquahala under this 

Alternative

2.4.2.1.1 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Under Alternative C two methods have been 

developed for determining which lands are 

potentially suitable for disposal through sale or 

exchange. Management of all other resources 

would remain as discussed for the Alternative.

The two methods are described below. The 

lands suitable for disposal, determined by both 

sets of criteria, are shown in Map 2-40.

The first method selects lands with the following 

traits:

parcels of 160 acres or less and

5 miles or more from blocks (5,000 or 

more contiguous acres) of BLMmanaged lands.

This method has found approximately 600 

acres potentially suitable for disposal. Of 

these 600 acres, 344 acres are scattered lands 

outside the planning area boundaries 

but included in this planning effort. None of the 

areas determined by this method were in a 

management unit selected for Alternative C.

The second method selects lands with the 

following traits:

either physically or functionally 

fragmented, 

in blocks of 5,000 acres or less, and

generally not adjoining in-holdings of 

other Federal agencies.
Chapter 2

114

This method found 49,100 acres to 

be potentially suitable for disposal. Of these 

49,100 acres, 5,200 acres are within the 

scattered lands outside the planning area 

boundaries but included in this planning effort.

Other criteria limiting which lands might be 

selected as suitable for disposal are described in 

the Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter in the discussion 

under Lands and Realty Section 2.7.1.2. 

Lands considered for potential acquisition 

include State and private lands (willing seller) 

within the planning area. Acquired parcels 

would be managed in accordance with the 

resource management prescriptions outlined in 

this land use plan. These lands would meet the 

criteria described under the Lands and Realty 

discussion of the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas, as well as program 

objectives for Alternative C.

Utility and Transportation Corridors

New utility corridors within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area (Map 2-41) would 

be allocated for future expected demands.

These allocations would respond to the 

demand to intensify the power grid and would 

conform to the utility regulations of the Arizona 

Corporation Commission.

2.4.2.1.2 Rangeland 

Management

Land Use Allocation

BLM would continue to administer 93 grazing 

authorizations within the planning area.

Desired Future Condition

Watersheds are in proper functioning condition, 

including their upland, riparian, and aquatic 

components. Soil and plant conditions support 

infiltration, storage, and release of water that are 

in balance with climate and landform.

Ecological processes are maintained to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities.

In riparian areas where livestock grazing 

precluded achieving Standard 2 of the Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health (Land Health 

Standards), the standard could be achieved 

within 3 years.

Management Actions

Grazing in riparian areas would be prohibited 

(Map 2-42). On grazing allotments where the 

riparian areas are unfenced and BLM owns or 

controls a sufficient amount of acreage within a 

pasture, the entire pasture would be unavailable 

for grazing. 

For allotments where the public lands are 

unfenced from other lands, surveys, 

and fencing would be required to establish the 

boundaries of the riparian areas and protect them 

from livestock grazing where reasonable and 

prudent.

The loss of acres in an allotment because of the 

riparian restriction would result in a 

corresponding reduction in current authorized 

livestock numbers.

2.4.2.1.3 Mineral Resource 

Management

The following maps show minerals management 

proposed under Alternative C in the immediate 

environs of the planning areas:

Alternative C Closed to Locatable 

Minerals (Map 2-43).

Alternative C Closed to Leasable 

Minerals (Map 2-44). 

Alternative C Closed to Saleable 

Minerals (Map 2-45). 

The following descriptions of mineral types 

include information on mining closures:
Chapter 2

115

Leasable Minerals

All lands would be open to leasing except for the 

Tule Creek ACEC, Sheep Mountain RNA 

ACEC, Black Mesa ACEC, and Baldy Mountain 

ONA ACEC (Map 2-46), all of which would be 

closed to mineral and geothermal leasing.

Reconveyed lands with potential for leasable 

minerals would be opened for mineral and 

geothermal leasing.

Saleable Minerals (Mineral Materials)

All BLM-managed lands in the planning area 

would be open for mineral material disposal, 

except for the following areas, which would be 

closed:

Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC (Map 2-

46). 

Black Butte ACEC (Map 2-46). 

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC (Map 2-

46). 

Tule Creek ACEC (Map 2-46). 

Vulture Mountains ACEC (Map 2-46). 

Black Mesa ACEC (Map 2-46). 

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics (Map 2-54).

Reconveyed lands with potential for saleable 

minerals would be opened for disposal of 

mineral materials.

Locatable Minerals

All lands would be open to mineral entry except 

for Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC, Sheep 

Mountain RNA ACEC, Black Mesa ACEC, and 

Tule Creek ACEC, all of which would be 

withdrawn from mineral entry (Map 2-46).

Small tracts and reconveyed lands with high 

potential for locatable minerals, except for lands 

in riparian corridors, would be opened to 

mineral entry.

No riparian areas now withdrawn from mineral 

entry would be opened to mineral entry under 

the mining laws.

2.4.2.1.4 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

All public lands within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be allocated 

as limited use areas, with motorized and 

mechanized vehicle uses limited to designated 

routes. The Hassayampa River Canyon, Hells 

Canyon, Harquahala Mountains, Big Horn 

Mountains and Hummingbird Spring 

Wildernesses would remain closed to motorized 

and mechanized uses (Map 2-16).

Desired Future Conditions

The network would consist of a system of areas, 

roads, routes and/or trails that promote access 

and recreation options. The travel management 

network and associated recreation opportunities 

would be consistent with other resource 

management objectives and recreation settings 

for the area.

Management Actions

Define, designate, implement, and monitor 

a comprehensive travel management network 

affording a range of high-quality and diverse 

motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities.

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel 

would be permitted except in cases of 

emergency or for approved administrative 

purposes. Until route designation is completed, 

all vehicle travel is restricted to inventoried 

routes as shown in chapter 3.

Administrative Actions

An evaluation process, similar to one described 

in Appendix D, will be used to establish a 

designated public access and route system to 
Chapter 2

116

support resource objectives consistent with 

Alternative B.

Develop comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management Plans for the 

management units and other public lands within 

the planning area. These plans would 

implement route designations on the public 

lands.

2.4.2.2 Management Units

Under Alternative C, six MUs are geographic 

units for presenting land use allocations. These 

MUs are summarized with their land use 

allocations and management actions in the 

following sections.

The document sections discussing the six MUs 

and the maps on which they appear are as 

follows:

Black Canyon Management Unit, 

Section 2.4.2.2.1, Map 2-47.

Castle Hot Springs Management Unit, 

Section 2.4.2.2.2, Map 2-48. 

Hassayampa Management Unit, Section

2.4.2.2.3, Map 2-49. 

Harquahala Management Unit, Section

2.4.2.2.4, Map 2-50. 

Harcuvar Management Unit, Section

2.4.2.2.5, Map 2-51. 

Upper Agua Fria River Basin 

Management, Section 2.4.2.2.6, Map 2-

52. 

Allocations outside MUs are discussed in 

Section 2.4.2.2.7 and shown on Map 2-53.

2.4.2.2.1 Black Canyon 

Management Unit

The Black Canyon MU stretches from the 

southern end of Table Mesa in the south to 

Cordes Junction in the north. It is bounded by 

Agua Fria National Monument and Tonto 

National Forest on the east and the Prescott 

National Forest on the west (Map 2-47).

The MU contains the following lands:

68,730 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

12,600 acres of Arizona State land, 

6,780 acres of private land, and

1,100 acres of county park lands in both 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. 

2.4.2.2.1.1 Special Designations

Area of Critical Environmental Concern

Black Mesa ACEC (5,540 acres)

Relevance 

Diverse types of significant archaeological 

sites occupied over the past 2,000 years, 

including sites that may have been ancestral to 

the Perry Mesa Tradition that was dominant in 

the Agua Fria National Monument.

Importance 

This area contains a well-preserved collection of 

prehistoric and historic sites that can yield 

information important to scientific research, 

particularly relating to the immediate 

predecessors and development of the Perry Mesa 

Tradition.

Management Actions 

Install fences or barriers to exclude livestock 

from the Running Deer site. 

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry; close it 

to mineral and geothermal leasing, and close to 

mineral material disposal.

Implement measures to protect cultural sites.

Limit commercial tours and special recreation 

permits. Limit tours to those conducted for 

educational purposes in conjunction with site 

recording or protection projects.

Close all routes that lead directly to significant 

sites.
Chapter 2

117

Administrative Actions

Complete Class III (intensive) cultural 

inventories of previously unsurveyed areas and 

permit BLM-approved scientific studies.

Continue to patrol sites with volunteer help and 

add this area to the territory regularly monitored 

by the Civil Air Patrol.

2.4.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Within the Black Canyon MU, the two methods 

used to determine lands suitable for disposal; 

generated no parcels by the first method 

and 5,020 acres by the second. For a 

description of the methods used, see the Lands 

and Realty discussion at the beginning of the 

description of Alternative C for the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. See the lands that 

are suitable for disposal on Map 2-40.

Communication Sites

One designated communication site is located 

within this MU. The Black Canyon City 

communication site would be retained and 

subject to valid existing rights.

Utility and Transportation Corridors

The portion of the Black Canyon corridor to the 

west of Interstate 17 would be widened for 

future utility development. The western 

boundary of the corridor would be adjusted to 

be 2 miles west of the true center of I-17.

2.4.2.2.1.3 Biological Resources

No biological resource allocations are 

located within this MU. Biological resources 

would be subject to management guidance in 

Section 2.7.1.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter and in Section

2.7.3.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. 

2.4.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Black Canyon Corridor SCRMA

Desired Future Condition 

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these 

objectives and management actions. Selected 

sites are interpreted to further public knowledge, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of cultural heritage 

values. 

Management Actions 

A combination of the some or all of following 

and other actions could be implemented at 

selected sites: 

parking areas, 

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites, 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and register boxes, 

and

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs. 

Stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in good 

condition.

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours, conducted with protective 

stipulations in accordance with BLM's 

regulations and, where required, SRPs.
Chapter 2

118

Administrative Actions

Select specific sites for public use by 

considering the following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

site condition and the feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to 

withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with 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. 

The BLM's recreation program would help 

develop sites for public use.

Cooperate with agencies, tribes, and local 

communities to develop heritage tourism 

programs that benefit local economies. Develop 

historic properties for heritage tourism in a way 

that contributes to their long-term preservation 

and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.4.2.2.1.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Table Mesa SRMA

Desired Future Condition 

Manage for intensive camping, OHV use, 

equestrian activities, and casual use mining. The 

SRMA would offer a diverse network of 

motorized single and two-track routes for 

general motorized recreation use, commercial 

use, and organized events. 

Emphasize acceptable dust control and 

compatibility with neighboring communities and 

landowners. 

Emphasize motorized recreation settings.

Users may be concentrated in some areas, 

but use is mainly dispersed. 

Develop only the facilities needed to meet 

resource management objectives and must be 

consistent with the desired recreation setting. 

Management Actions

Manage for intensive camping, OHV use, 

equestrian activities, and casual use mining.

Locate and develop a staging/camping area to 

meet the high recreation demand. Provide for 

the following:

parking and unloading of OHVs, 

overnight camping, 

event operations, 

informational signing, 

dust abatement, and

human health and safety. 

Limit to 10 acres the areas of exposed barren 

soil.

Prohibit motorized competitive races in the 

SRMA.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.1.7.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 
Chapter 2

119

define desired conditions and standards, 

and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Land Use Allocation

The remaining lands within the Management 

Unit would be allocated as an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

2.4.2.2.1.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the Black Canyon Management unit, 

14,880 acres would be allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

54.

Desired Future Condition 

In addition to the DFC and management actions 

described in the Wilderness Characteristics 

discussion of the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas section of Chapter 2, the 

following apply to this allocation.

Manage with an emphasis on non-motorized and 

primitive recreation experiences, to augment the 

open space and natural landscapes. Desired 

recreation settings would consist of semiprimitive non-motorized tracts within the 

interior of the allocation with semi-primitive 

motorized tracts along boundaries.

Sections of the Black Canyon Trail's current 

alignment traversing this area would be 

managed as a primitive multi-use trail, open to 

use by four-wheel-drive vehicles, ATVs, 

motorcycles, mountain bikes, hikers, and 

horses. A non-motorized Black Canyon Trail 

alignment is currently being surveyed 

and constructed through this area.

Management Actions

Close all secondary, tertiary, reclaiming, and 

single-track vehicle routes and washes not part 

of the Black Canyon Trail sections mentioned 

above. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.1.7.

The current alignment of the Black Canyon Trail 

would be maintained and managed as a multiuse route.

Develop non-motorized trails to link with 

community trail systems.

Close the areas to mineral material disposal and 

vegetation sales.

Administrative Actions

Undertake detailed inventory and analysis to 

develop standards to maintain proper levels of 

recreation disturbance in each recreation setting.

2.4.2.2.1.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative C throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-36. 

Within the Black Canyon Management Unit:

the Table Mesa SRMA would be 

allocated to VRM Class III, 

lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be allocated to 

VRM Class II objectives, 

utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV, and 

the rest of the Management Unit would 

be allocated to VRM 

classes as portrayed on Map 2-36. 
Chapter 2

120

2.4.2.2.1.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Black Mesa ACEC would be withdrawn from 

mineral entry, closed to mineral and geothermal 

leasing, and closed to mineral material disposal.

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to mineral 

material disposal.

2.4.2.2.1.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Black Canyon Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

The Table Mesa SRMA and other recreation 

allocations are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.1.5.

The Table Mesa SRMA would offer a variety of 

experiences as part of a diverse network of 

motorized single and two-track routes for 

general motorized recreation use, commercial 

use, organized events, and equestrian activities.

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in Section

2.4.2.2.1.6.

SCRMAs and cultural sites allocated to Public 

Use are discussed in the Cultural Resources 

Section 2.4.2.2.1.4.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Close all secondary, tertiary, reclaiming, and 

single-track vehicle routes and washes not part 

of the Black Canyon Trail sections, in order to 

secure wilderness character on lands managed to 

maintain wilderness character.

Sections of the Black Canyon Trail's current 

alignment traversing this area would be 

managed and maintained as a primitive multiuse trail, open to use by four-wheel-drive 

vehicles, ATVs, motorcycles, mountain bikes, 

foot travel, and horses. A non-motorized Black 

Canyon Trail alignment is currently being 

surveyed and constructed through this area.

Close all routes that lead directly to significant 

cultural sites within the Black Mesa ACEC.

Develop non-motorized trails to link with 

community trail systems.

2.4.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs 

Management Unit

Castle Hot Springs MU is bounded by State 

Route 74 (the Carefree Highway) to the south, 

Prescott National Forest to the north, Black 

Canyon MU to the east, and Hassayampa MU to 

the west (Map 2-48). The MU contains the 

following lands:

112,430 acres of BLM-administered 

land, 

53,730 acres of Arizona State land, 

32,560 acres of private land, 

22,870 acres of county park lands in 

both Maricopa and Yavapai Counties 

(Lake Pleasant Regional Park), and

1,100 acres of Bureau of Reclamation 

lands not within Lake Pleasant Regional 

Park. 

2.4.2.2.2.1 Special Designations

Current Special Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with management actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 
Chapter 2

121

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section of 

this chapter.

Tule Creek ACEC (640 acres) 

Relevance

Tule Creek ACEC contains significant historic 

and cultural values, including the Fort Tule site, 

a prehistoric hilltop ruin occupied from about 

A.D. 1100 to 1300, and a homesite occupied by 

miners in the 1920s and 1930s. Tule Creek is an 

example of rare Sonoran Desert riparian system 

dominated by emergent vegetation and occupied 

by the endangered Gila topminnow.

Importance 

The Fort Tule cultural site was probably used as 

a significant connection in a regional 

communication system based on signaling

among hilltop sites. Its role in the 

communication system can offer important 

information on prehistoric social systems during 

the era in which it was used.

Tule Creek and its sensitive biological 

resources are extremely vulnerable to 

disturbance and degradation from vehicles, 

mining, and livestock use. Continued protecting 

of Tule Creek is important to the recovery of the 

endangered Gila topminnow.

Desired Future Condition 

The integrity of the riparian area, endangered 

species habitat, and cultural resources are 

protected from degradation.

Management Actions 

Close the fenced area to livestock grazing and 

motorized vehicles.

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry; close it 

to mineral and geothermal leasing, and close to

mineral material disposal.

Administrative Decision

Continue to patrol archaeological sites and, 

where needed, implement measures to protect 

sites.

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC (4,270 acres)

Relevance 

Pristine biological resources, including desert 

tortoise habitat and potential desert bighorn 

sheep habitat, with open space and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. 

Importance 

This is a highly scenic area with high-quality 

wildlife habitat undisturbed by vehicle 

routes and human activity.\

Desired Future Condition

Semi-primitive, non-motorized recreation 

setting throughout the entire area.

A diversity of non-motorized, trail-based 

opportunities in a natural setting.

Broad expanses of natural appearing Sonoran 

Desert landscapes that continue to contribute to 

the open space, primitive recreation, and 

solitude opportunities near the urban centers of 

the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area.

Management Actions

Close all vehicle routes identified as reclaimed 

through the route designation process.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.2.6.

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry 

and close it to mineral and geothermal leasing 

and to mineral material disposal.

Do not permitt vegetation sales.
Chapter 2

122

2.4.2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Within the Castle Hot Springs MU, the two 

methods that were used to derive lands available 

for disposal; generated no parcels by the first 

method, and 2,270 acres by the second method.

For a description of the methods used, see the 

Lands and Realty discussion at the beginning of 

the description of Alternative C for the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. See lands 

that are suitable for disposal in Map 2-40. 

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites lie 

within this MU.

2.4.2.2.2.3 Biological Resources

No allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Castle Hot Springs 

MU. Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

2.4.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria SCRMA

Desired Future Condition 

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these 

objectives and management actions. Selected 

sites are interpreted to further public knowledge, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of cultural heritage 

values. 

Management Actions 

A combination of some or all of following and 

other actions could be implemented at selected 

sites: 

parking areas, 

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites, 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and register boxes, 

and

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs. 

Implement actions to stabilize, repair, and 

maintain sites in good condition.

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours, conducted with protective 

stipulations in accordance with BLM's 

regulations and, where required, SRPs.

Administrative Actions

Specific sites for public use would be selected 

by considering the following factors: 

aboveground features of interest to the 

public and amenable to interpretation, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

site condition and the feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to 

withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 
Chapter 2

123

The BLM's recreation program would help 

develop sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. Develop historic properties for 

heritage tourism to contribute to their long-term 

preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.4.2.2.2.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA

Desired Future Condition 

Manage mainly for intensive motorized single 

and two-track routes for general motorized 

recreation use and competitive races.

Emphasize dust control and compatibility with 

neighboring communities and landowners. 

Maintain semi-primitive motorized and roadednatural settings, with an emphasis on semiprimitive motorized opportunities.

Develop facilities with a variety of amenities 

consistent with the desired recreation setting.

Visitors could expect contact with BLM's 

representatives frequently.

Nonintrusive signing would be present in most 

of the SRMA but might be absent in some areas.

Users would be concentrated in staging and 

camping areas, but most use would be dispersed.

Management Actions

Designate all motorized vehicle routes within 

this SRMA for general motorized recreation use, 

commercial use, organized OHV events, and 

competitive races.

Locate at least 20 miles of single and two-track 

routes for motorized competitive races to 

provide a unique array of challenges 

for motorcycle and ATV competitive racing.

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 2 per year.

Locate and develop a staging/camping area for 

the following purposes:

meeting the high recreation demand, 

parking and unloading OHVs, 

overnight camping, 

event operations, 

informational signing, 

dust abatement, and

human health and safety. 

Limit to 20 acres the area of exposed barren soil. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.2.6.

Land Use Allocation

The lands remaining in the Management 

Unit would be allocated to an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

2.4.2.2.2.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

In the Castle Hot Springs Management 

Unit, 9,413 acres would be allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics (Map 2-54).

In addition to the DFC and management actions 

described in the Wilderness Characteristics 

discussion of the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas section of this chapter, the 

following apply to this allocation.
Chapter 2

124

Desired Future Condition

The area would be managed mainly for 

emphasis on non-motorized recreation 

experiences, open space, and natural landscapes 

to complement Lake Pleasant Regional Park.

Recreation settings of semi-primitive nonmotorized would be maintained throughout the 

area. Natural landscape values and remoteness 

would be maintained. 

The current mix of motorized and nonmotorized recreation settings, associated 

landscapes, and experiences would be 

maintained.

Management Actions 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.2.7.

As many as three non-motorized trails and 

trailheads would be developed to link with other 

trails, allow loop hikes, and provide a variety of 

trail experiences.

Mineral material disposals, vegetation sales, and 

new roads, and rights-of-way would be 

prohibited.

Vehicles would be confined to designated 

routes. Reclaiming and eroded routes, hillside 

climbs, and washes would be closed to 

motorized travel.

2.4.2.2.2.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative C throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-36. 

Within the Castle Hot springs Management 

Unit:

the Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC and 

the Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC would 

be allocated to VRM Class I objectives, 

the Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA 

would be allocated to VRM Class III 

objectives, 

the Hells Canyon Wilderness would 

continue to be allocated to VRM Class I 

objectives, and

in areas not listed above, VRM 

classes would be as portrayed on Map 2-

36. 

2.4.2.2.2.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Tule Creek ACEC, Baldy Mountain 

ONA ACEC, and Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC 

would be withdrawn from mineral entry, closed 

to mineral and geothermal leasing, and closed to 

mineral material disposal.

2.4.2.2.2.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Castle Hot Springs Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in Special Areas 

Designations Section 2.4.2.2.2.1. RMAs and 

other recreation allocations are discussed in 

Section 2.4.2.2.2.5.

SCRMAs and cultural resources sites allocated 

to Public Use are discussed in Section

2.4.2.2.2.4.

Management Actions

Limit all vehicles to designated routes. No crosscountry motorized travel would be permitted 
Chapter 2

125

except in cases of emergency or for approved 

administrative purposes.

Close all secondary, tertiary, single-track, 

washes, and reclaiming vehicle routes within the 

Baldy Mountain ONA/ACEC. Build nonmotorized trails with up to three trailheads 

within the ONA/ACEC, offering loop hikes, and 

connection to other trails.

Close the fenced area within the Tule Creek 

ACEC to motorized vehicles.

Within the Hieroglyphic Mountains 

SRMA, manage mainly for intensive motorized 

single and two-track routes for general 

motorized recreation use and competitive 

races. Designate all motorized vehicle routes 

within the SRMA for general motorized 

recreation use, commercial use, organized OHV 

events and competitive races. Locate at least 20 

miles of single and two-track routes for 

motorized competitive races to provide a unique 

array of challenges for motorcycle and ATV 

competitive racing.

Close all reclaimed vehicle routes within the 

Sheep Mountain ONA/ACEC except those 

needed to facilitate public access to the area.

Consider developing hard-surfaced walking 

trails within the Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria 

SCRMA for interpretation and educational uses.

2.4.2.2.3 Hassayampa 

Management Unit

The Hassayampa MU contains the Town of 

Wickenburg at its center. It is bounded on the 

east by Prescott National Forest and the Castle 

Hot Springs MU, and on the west by the 

Harquahala MU. The southern edge is south of 

the Vulture Mountains, and the MU extends 

north past Yarnell (Map 2-49).

The MU contains the following land:

181,910 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

130,580 acres of Arizona State land, 

50,610 acres of private land, and 

460 acres of county-administered lands 

in Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. 

2.4.2.2.3.1 Special Designations

Current Special Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with Management Actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section of 

this chapter.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

Vulture Mountains ACEC (2,790 acres)

Relevance 

The cliffs along the crest of Vulture and 

Caballeros Peaks are significant habitat features 

used by many species of raptors, as well as 

being a pristine, scenic landmark. These cliffs 

are essential to the maintenance of the current 

biological diversity of the surrounding area.

Large concentrations of nesting hawks and 

falcons use these spectacular cliff faces.

Importance 

The value of the cliffs for nesting raptors is 

significant for a large area. These cliffs are 

virtually the only suitable nesting cliffs for many 

miles. Nesting raptors are sensitive to 

construction-related activities. If the cliffs and 

surrounding area are not protected from these 

activities, cliff-nesting raptors would disappear 

from much of the area.

Desired Future Condition

Maintain the raptor nesting habitat on the cliffs 

and the surrounding foraging habitat.

Management Actions 

Prohibit mineral material disposal.
Chapter 2

126

The ACEC boundary would be a 1/2 mile buffer 

of significant cliffs.

Prohibit the creation of new recreation sites.

Close, limit, or mitigate vehicle routes that 

conflict with maintaining wildlife habitat and 

cultural resources to ensure achieving the DFC.

Prohibit building of new vehicle routes.

Prohibit rock climbing in the ACEC.

Acquire non-Federal lands within the ACEC as 

available.

Back Country Byway

Constellation Mine Road Desired Future 

Condition 

This back country byway would provide a 

vehicle-based, backcountry experience with 

amenities to heighten visitor experiences and to 

educate and inform visitors about interesting 

natural and cultural features along the route.

Visitors could expect the road to occasionally be 

difficult and settings to be remote. The road 

might not be accessible to all classes of 

vehicles. High clearance might be needed to 

travel the whole route. The road does not 

fragment wildlife habitat or limit wildlife 

movement. Establish and maintain a semiprimitive motorized recreation setting 1⁄2 mile to 

either side of the road's centerline.

Management Actions 

Evaluate and nominate the Constellation Mine 

Road for potential designation as a national back 

country byway.

Maintain the public portions of this road at a 

BLM Maintenance Intensity standard of Level 3 

 ̳Medium‘ (BLM Roads and Trails Terminology

Report) and passable by high-clearance vehicles.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.3.7.

Secure easements and rights-of-way as described 

in Travel Management Section 2.4.2.2.3.9,

where needed to ensure long-term public access 

along Constellation Mine Road.

Interpret the route‘s historical features, including 

original road-building structures; mining 

properties and districts; and historic homesteads, 

settlements, and ranching history.

Install directional, safety, and interpretive signs 

to enhance public use, enjoyment, and 

stewardship of the route.

Administrative Actions

Establish a friends group to maintain, monitor, 

and help interpret the route, and present the 

route and area‘s natural and human history.

2.4.2.2.3.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Within the Hassayampa MU the two methods 

that were used to derive lands available for 

disposal, generated no parcels by the first 

method; and 10,340 acres by the second 

method. For a description of the methods 

used, see the Lands and Realty discussion at the 

beginning of the description of Alternative C for 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. See 

lands that are suitable for disposal on Map 2-40.

In support of the Yarnell Special Recreation 

Management Area:

Retain in public ownership Sections 22, 

23, and 27 (Map 2-32) and all landing 

zones below Yarnell Hill. 

Acquire legal public access to the 

Yarnell hang gliding launching area 

through easements, rights-of-way, or 

land acquisition. 
Chapter 2

127

Acquire the Arizona State Trust parcel 

southwest of Yarnell containing Fool‘s 

Gulch (Section 22) through purchase, 

legislation, or exchange. 

Prohibit new overhead powerlines, 

phone lines, or communication facilities 

within 1 mile of launching and 

identified landing zones. 

In support of the Wickenburg Special Recreation 

Management Area:

Acquire the 19,396 acres of State land 

within the SRMA. Prioritize and pursue 

acquisition using the criteria in the 

Lands and Realty discussion of the 

Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of Chapter 2. Lands 

would be acquired according to the 

following priorities: 

o maintaining access and securing 

trail alignments, 

o enhancing recreation 

opportunities, 

o preserving scenery and open 

space, and

o conserving riparian values. 

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites are within 

this MU.

2.4.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources

No biological allocations would be made within 

the Hassayampa MU. Biological resources 

would be subject to management guidance in 

Section 2.7.1.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter and in Section

2.7.3.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. 

2.4.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Wickenburg/Vulture SCRMA

Desired Future Condition 

Manage a variety of prehistoric and historic sites 

for interpretation, education, and public 

visitation. For further information on public use 

of cultural resources, see Appendix E.

Management Actions

A combination of some or all of following and 

other actions could be implemented at selected 

sites:

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites, 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and register boxes, 

and

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs 

Stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in good 

condition.

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours with protective stipulations in 

accordance with BLM regulations and, where 

required, SRPs.

Administrative Actions

Select sites for public use considering the 

following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 
Chapter 2

128

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

condition of the site and the feasibility 

of stabilizing selected areas or features 

to withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would 

participate in developing sites for public use.

Cooperate with agencies, tribes, and local 

communities to support heritage tourism 

programs that benefit local economies. Develop 

historic properties for heritage tourism to 

contribute to their long-term preservation and 

productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.4.2.2.3.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Stanton SRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide an area to accommodate intensive 

recreation public uses and desired settings. This 

area would continue to allow other diverse 

recreation experiences while decreasing

unacceptable environmental impacts from the 

following:

excessive and unregulated camping, 

recreation activities of prospecting 

clubs, and

motorized and other recreation uses. 

Maintain a variety of recreation settings and 

opportunities with an emphasis on semiprimitive motorized and roaded-natural settings 

and associated recreation experiences.

Management Actions

Locate and develop trailheads, staging and 

camping areas, and other facilities.

Designate a diverse network of motorized 

vehicle routes open to a range of OHV 

experiences and challenges.

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 1 per year.

Install informational, educational, and 

interpretive kiosks and trail signs where needed 

and suitable. Placement of interpretive signs 

along the Stanton-Octave-Yarnell road, as 

proposed under the Lower Gila North MFP, 

would be consistent with this management 

action.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.3.7.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where 

assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

define detailed desired conditions, 

define standards, and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Land Use Allocation

Yarnell SRMA

Desired Future Condition 

This site is one of the most valued in Arizona for 

launching successful long-distance, nonpowered flights. Maintain long-term public 
Chapter 2

129

access to the Yarnell hang gliding launching 

area. In addition, maintain the landing areas and 

approaches to landing areas as free of flight 

hazards as possible.

Management Actions

Lands actions to support this SRMA are 

described in the Lands and Realty Section. 

2.4.2.2.3.2.

Land Use Allocation

Wickenburg SRMA

Desired Future Condition

Establish a system of high-quality equestrian 

trails surrounding Wickenburg to buffer the area 

from urban sprawl and preserve the open space 

value of the local landscape. This trail 

system would afford many opportunities 

for recreation enthusiasts and enhance the 

lifestyle, culture, and cultural history of 

community residents.

Offer properly managed and marketed quality 

recreation and tourism, promoting 

conservation, a strong land ethic, and protects

the natural resources and cultural heritage of the 

Wickenburg SRMA.

Emphasize and maintain, in suitable areas, an 

array of rural, roaded-natural, semi-primitive 

motorized, and semi-primitive non-motorized 

settings and associated experiences and 

opportunities for residents, tourists, and winter 

visitors.

Management Actions 

Locate and develop a non-motorized trailhead 

for the Red Top Trail System to meet the high 

demand for non-motorized recreation and 

provide for the following:

vehicle parking, 

unloading of animals, 

overnight camping, 

event operations, 

informational signing, 

dust abatement, and

human health and safety.

Limit to 20 acres the area of exposed barren soil.

Locate and develop an ATV and a motorcycle 

trail network in the Red Top Trail area to give 

the local community motorized recreation 

opportunities and to shift motorized use from 

designated non-motorized trails. Use existing 

designated motorized vehicle routes, and, if 

necessary, create new routes less than 52 inches 

wide to meet the objective.

Prohibit motorized competitive races in the 

SRMA.

Locate and develop at least one small parking 

area for OHV parking and unloading. Limit to 5 

acres the area of exposed barren soil.

Maintain and upgrade the Vulture Peak Trail by 

rerouting some trail segments.

Lands actions to support this SRMA are 

described in the Lands and Realty Section. 

2.4.2.2.3.2.

Develop special facilities for horse camping in 

the area south of Vulture Peak and south of 

Congress. These facilities could provide water 

for horses, electrical hook-ups for trailers, and 

more primitive horse camping facilities.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.3.7.

Withdraw from mineral entry, close to mineral 

and geothermal leasing, and close to mineral 

material disposal, an area around Box 

Canyon on the Hassayampa River to 

permanently protect its scenic quality and 

recreation values. The withdrawal would 

include the following sections: Township 8 

North, Range 5 West, sections 12, 13, and 24; 

and Township 8 North, Range 4 West, sections 

7, 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30. (Map 2-55).
Chapter 2

130

Administrative Actions

Collaborate with a diverse group of 

Wickenburg citizens to conserve the ecological, 

cultural, open space, and recreation values of the 

Wickenburg area so that it remains a place 

where people want to live, work, and play. 

Write a comprehensive strategy and trails plan to 

select and develop new single-use and multi-use 

hiking, equestrian, and OHV trails for all lands 

in the SRMA.

Land Use Allocation

San Domingo SRMA

Desired Future Condition

Provide a Sonoran Desert wash and upland 

environment suitable for an array of motorized 

and non-motorized activities. Manage for 

roaded-natural, semi-primitive motorized, and 

semi-primitive non-motorized recreation 

settings.

Provide opportunities for the following 

while protecting the natural and cultural 

resources in the area:

intensive camping,

OHV activities, 

equestrian use, 

recreation activities of prospecting 

clubs,

event operations, and

motorized single and two-track routes 

for general motorized recreation use and 

competitive races.

Management Actions 

Locate and develop trailheads, staging and 

camping areas, and other facilities as needed for 

recreation activities. Limit to 10 acres the areas 

of exposed barren soil.

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 1 per year. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.3.7.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Land Use Allocation

Vulture Mine SRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a Sonoran Desert landscape suitable for 

intensive motorized single and two-track routes 

for general motorized recreation use, 

commercial use, organized OHV events and 

competitive races.

Emphasize and maintain the current roadednatural and semi-primitive motorized recreation 

settings and associated opportunities.

Preserve the mining and settlement history of the 

Vulture City Cemetery.

Management Actions 

Designate a minimum of 20 miles of motorized 

single and two-track routes for competitive races 

to provide a unique array of challenges for truck, 

buggy, ATV, and motorcycle competitive 

racing.

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 2 per year.
Chapter 2

131

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.3.7.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Write a site management and interpretation plan 

for the Vulture City Cemetery.

Land Use Allocation

The remaining lands within the Management 

Unit would be allocated as an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

2.4.2.2.3.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the Hassayampa Management Unit, 

13,200 acres would be allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

54. 

Desired Future Condition 

In addition to the DFC and management actions 

described in the Wilderness Characteristics 

discussion of the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas section of Chapter 2, the 

following apply to this allocation:

Manage for open space and generally natural 

landscapes. Emphasize a recreation setting of 

semi-primitive non-motorized. 

Maintain availability of non-motorized 

recreation opportunities.

Management Actions 

Close tertiary, primitive, reclaiming, single-track 

vehicle routes and washes to motorized use.

Retain access to the Fools Canyon OHV route 

between the Hassayampa River Canyon 

Wilderness and lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.3.7.

Prohibit mineral material disposal and 

vegetation sales.

2.4.2.2.3.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative C throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-36. 

Within the Hassayampa Management Unit, 

allocate:

Constellation Mine Road Back Country 

Byway to VRM Class II objectives 1⁄2 

mile to either side of the road's 

centerline. 

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to VRM Class I 

objectives. 

Wickenburg SRMA to VRM Class II 

objectives except areas with desired 

recreation settings of rural or roadednatural and areas open to mineral 

development to VRM Class III 

objectives. 

San Domingo, Stanton, and Vulture 

Mine SRMAs to VRM Class III. 

Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness 

to VRM Class I objectives. 
Chapter 2

132

Utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV. 

Areas not listed above would be 

allocated to VRM classes as portrayed 

on Map 2-36.

2.4.2.2.3.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Close Vulture Mountains ACEC to mineral 

material disposal.

Close lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to mineral material disposal.

Close and withdraw from mineral 

entry, mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and mineral material disposal an area within 

Wickenburg SRMA and around Box Canyon, to 

include the following sections: 

Township 8 North, Range 5 West, 

sections 12, 13, and 24. 

Township 8 North, Range 4 West, 

sections 7, 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30. 

2.4.2.2.3.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Hassayampa Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in the Special Area 

Designation Section 2.4.2.2.3.1.

SCRMAs and cultural resource sites allocated to 

Public Use are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.3.4.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.3.5.

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in Section

2.4.2.2.3.6.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

The Stanton SRMA would include a diverse 

network of motorized vehicle routes open to a 

range of OHV experiences and challenges.

The Wickenburg SRMA would feature a system 

of high-quality equestrian trails surrounding 

Wickenburg. Transportation related 

prescriptions include:

Locate and develop a non-motorized 

trailhead for the Red Top Trail System 

to meet the high demand for nonmotorized recreation. 

Locate and develop an ATV and a 

motorcycle trail network in the Red Top 

Trail area. Use existing designated 

motorized vehicle routes, and, if 

necessary, create new routes less than 52 

inches wide to meet the objective. 

Maintain and upgrade the Vulture Peak 

Trail by rerouting some trail segments. 

The San Domingo SRMA would offer a 

Sonoran Desert wash and upland environment 

suitable for an array of motorized and nonmotorized activities.

The Vulture Mine SRMA would provide a 

Sonoran Desert landscape suitable for intensive 

motorized single and two-track routes for 

general motorized recreation use, commercial 

use, organized OHV events and competitive 

races. Locate a minimum of 20 miles of 

motorized single and two-track routes for 

competitive races to provide a unique array of 
Chapter 2

133

challenges for truck, buggy, ATV, and 

motorcycle competitive racing.

Close the Vulture Peak ACEC to road building.

Secure easements and rights-of-way where 

needed to ensure long-term public access 

along Constellation Mine Road.

Close tertiary, primitive, reclaiming, single-track 

vehicle routes and washes to motorized use 

on 13,200 acres allocated to maintain wilderness

characteristics as shown on Map 2-49. Retain 

access to the Fools Canyon OHV route between 

the Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness and 

lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics.

Consider construction of hard-surfaced walking 

trails at selected sites within the 

Wickenburg/Vulture SCRMA for interpretation, 

education, and visitation.

Implementation Actions

Write a comprehensive strategy and trails plan to 

select and to develop new single-use and multiuse hiking, equestrian, and OHV trails for all 

lands in the Wickenburg SRMA.

2.4.2.2.4 Harquahala 

Management Unit

Alternatives C, D, and E would slightly expand 

the Harquahala MU. The MU os bounded on 

the east by the Hassayampa MU and extends 

west to the Hassayampa Field Office boundary, 

near the town of Wenden. The MU's southern 

boundary includes the private and State land 

south to Interstate 10. The northern 

boundary follows BLM's property line south 

of US Route 60, which goes west of 

Wickenburg, through Aguila, and through 

Wenden (Map 2-50).

The Harquahala MU contains the following 

land:

420,730 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

48,410 acres of Arizona State land, and

29,616 acres of private land.

Vision 

The Harquahala Mountains are renowned for 

their cultural history, the quality and uniqueness 

of their biotic communities, and the diversity of 

their recreation opportunities. The mountain 

ranges in this MU (Harquahala, Big Horn, and 

Belmont Mountains) and the areas between them 

create a complex of wildlife habitats and wildlife 

movement corridors that the AGFD 

recognizes as priority management areas. The 

abundant recreation opportunities include:

primitive experiences, 

designated hiking trails, 

a back country byway, 

backpacking, 

wildlife viewing, 

hunting, 

rock hounding, 

equestrian uses, 

cultural sightseeing, and

OHV-driving opportunities. 

The MU's scenic and natural landscapes are 

maintained while offering visitors a diverse 

array of recreation opportunities. Such 

opportunities within the MU include both 

motorized and non-motorized activities. At the 

same time, a priority is placed on maintaining, 

enhancing, and restoring natural, biological, and 

cultural resources.

2.4.2.2.4.1 Special Designations

Current Special Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with management actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section of 

this chapter.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Chapter 2

134

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC (41,670

acres)

Relevance

The area constitutes a rare, intact, mountaintop 

vegetation community surrounded by low 

desert. The mountains contain a biologically 

diverse system, in stark contrast to the 

surrounding landscape, and support a diverse 

sky island ecosystem, with many species not 

found in the surrounding Sonoran Desert. The 

mountains are a natural and mainly roadless area 

with few noticeable human intrusions in a 

primitive landscape setting.

Importance

The ONA does the following:

encloses and preserves a unique 

assemblage of biological resources, 

conserves significant cultural and 

historic sites, and

protects a distinctive vegetation 

community. 

The biological richness of the Harquahala 

Mountains is unique within southwest Arizona.

The Harquahala Mountains and surrounding 

bajadas provide important wildlife habitat to a 

diverse array of wildlife species. The area is an 

ecoregional conservation site with important 

biodiversity values.

The ONA contains the Harquahala Mountain 

Observatory National Register of Historic Places 

district. Besides the observatory itself; the 

historic Harquahala Peak Pack Trail, Ellison's 

Camp, and other sites are also components of the 

historic district. The area also includes many 

well-preserved prehistoric sites and historic 

ranching and mining sites. Some archaeological 

sites may be related to the use of the mountain 

range by a regional group of the Western 

Yavapai Tribe. 

The ONA will safeguard important and 

unfragmented wildlife habitat.

Desired Future Condition 

The integrity of the vegetation communities, 

historical features, and prehistoric sites are 

protected from degradation. Unfragmented 

wildlife habitat provides adequate forage, cover, 

and access to water for healthy wildlife 

populations.

Management Actions

Prohibit the constriuction of new vehicle routes.

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry, and 

close it to mineral and geothermal leasing, and 

mineral material disposal.

Protect spring sources by not allowing surfacedisturbing activities.

Acquire all available state lands and private 

lands from willing sellers.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintaining wildlife habitat 

and cultural resources to ensure achieving DFC. 

Prohibit building new recreation sites.

Prohibit livestock grazing during bighorn sheep 

lambing season (January 1 to April 1).

Undertake actions to protect important cultural 

resources. Maintain the Harquahala 

Observatory historical site and its interpretive 

facilities in their current condition.

Prohibit developing grazing improvements that 

would increase livestock use in Browns Canyon 

and the Inner Basin.

Administrative Actions

Undertake an inventory of cultural resources to 

identify and to evaluate sites, determine proper 

site uses, and develop and implement protection 

measures for cultural resources within the 

ACEC. 
Chapter 2

135

Black Butte ACEC (800 acres)

Relevance 

Biological resources including raptor nesting 

habitat and desert tortoise habitat.

Significant source of material for prehistoric tool 

production.

Importance 

Important raptor nesting habitat in central 

Arizona.

The "Vulture" source of obsidian was a major 

source of obsidian for prehistoric groups.

Desired Future Condition

The raptor nesting habitat values of the cliffs 

and the surrounding foraging habitat are 

maintained.

The integrity of the archeological sites is 

protected from disturbance or degradation.

Management Actions 

Do not permit mineral material disposal.

Prohibit building of new recreation sites.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintaining wildlife habitat 

and cultural resources to achieve the DFC.

Prohibit the creation of new motorized routes.

The "Vulture" obsidian source is a highly valued 

site within the ACEC. Prohibit actions that 

would threaten its integrity. Permit scientific 

study that advances local and regional 

archaeological knowledge if the integrity of the 

site is maintained.

Prohibit rock climbing to protect nesting raptors.

2.4.2.2.4.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Within the Harquahala MU, the two methods 

used to derive lands available for disposal 

generated no parcels by the first method 

and 8,210 acres by the second method. For a 

description of the methods used, see the Lands 

and Realty discussion at the beginning of the 

description of Alternative C for the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. See lands that are 

suitable for disposal on Map 2-40.

Communication Sites

The Harquahala Peak communication site would 

be the only designated communication site 

within this MU. New communication sites 

will be authorized only at existing designated 

communication sites.

2.4.2.2.4.3 Biological Resources

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

Land Use Allocation

Belmont/Big Horn Mountains Wildlife Habitat 

Area

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain the wildlife and plant diversity and 

species richness of the Sonoran Desert scrub 

vegetation community. Maintain unfragmented 

wildlife habitat that provides adequate forage, 

cover, and access to water for healthy wildlife 

populations.

Management Actions 

Prohibit building new fences.
Chapter 2

136

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate motorized 

vehicle routes that conflict with maintaining 

wildlife habitat values to ensure achieving DFC.

Arizona State and private lands would be 

acquired from willing sellers when available.

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts.

Land Use Allocation

Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn Wildlife Corridor 

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain the plant diversity and richness of the 

chaparral and Sonoran Desert scrub vegetation 

communities. Maintain unfragmented wildlife 

habitat that provides adequate forage, cover, and 

access to water for healthy wildlife populations. 

Management Actions 

Arizona State and private lands would be 

acquired from willing sellers when available.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate motorized 

vehicle routes that conflict with maintaining 

wildlife habitat values to ensure achieving DFC.

Design all future improvements to motorized 

vehicle routes to ensure wildlife habitat is not 

fragmented and wildlife movement is 

unimpeded, especially for desert bighorn sheep 

and desert tortoise.

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts.

2.4.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Harquahala Mountains SCRMA

Desired Future Condition 

A variety of prehistoric and historic sites would 

be managed for interpretation, education, and 

public visitation. For further information on 

public use of cultural resources, see Appendix E.

Management Actions

A combination of some or all of the following 

and other actions could be implemented at 

selected sites:

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites, 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and register boxes, 

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs. 

Stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in good 

condition.

Authorize, with protective stipulations, 

commercial and noncommercial group tours in 

accordance with BLM's regulations and, where 

required, SRPs.

Administrative Actions

Select sites for public use by considering the 

following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

site condition and the feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to 

withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and
Chapter 2

137

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would help 

develop sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. BLM would develop historic 

properties for heritage tourism to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.4.2.2.4.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

The entire Harquahala MU would be 

allocated as an Extensive Recreation 

Management Area.

Implementation Actions

Select, plan, and develop at least one staging and 

one camping area to meet motorized and nonmotorized recreation demand. Have this 

area provide accommodation for the following:

parking, 

unloading OHVs and horses, 

overnight camping, and

large organized event operations.

Development may include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

hitching posts, 

troughs for water hauled to the site, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement. 

Limit to 15 acres the area of exposed barren 

soil. Mark or delineate the perimeter with 

barriers to prevent expansion. 

In the area near Black Mountain, BLM may 

designate and build as many as three loop or 

one-way trails for ATVs and motorcycles, with 

total mileage not to exceed 20 miles. These 

trails would be adjacent to areas managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics.

2.4.2.2.4.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the Harquahala Management Unit, 

70,350 acres would be allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

54. 

In addition to the DFC and management actions 

described in the Wilderness Characteristics 

discussion of the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas section of Chapter 2, the 

following apply to this allocation.

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain current natural conditions and open 

space values. Expand the availability of nonmotorized trails for hikers, equestrians, and 

mountain bikers. Emphasize non-motorized 

recreation. Increase availability of nonmotorized recreation opportunities where 

practical.

Manage for recreation settings of semi-primitive 

non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized, 

with an emphasis on the following:

maintaining land areas for primitive 

recreation, 

practicing backcountry skills, 

attaining isolation from other users, and

maintaining remoteness. 
Chapter 2

138

Management Actions

Close tertiary, primitive, reclaimed, and singletrack vehicle routes, and washes except routes 

providing access to functioning and maintained 

facilities, waters, or other authorized uses. 

Retain the main transportation and travel 

network for continued use.

Motorized competitive races would not be 

permitted.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.4.7.

Prohibit mineral material disposals and 

vegetation sales.

Locate and develop as many as three hiking, 

equestrian, and bicycle trails, with total mileage 

not to exceed 10 miles.

Close the raptor protection area and Vulture 

obsidian area to vehicular travel.

Administrative Actions

Conduct a detailed inventory of current 

disturbances to provide a baseline for 

establishing detailed standards and setting 

trigger-points for management actions so that 

each recreation setting will not exceed proper 

levels of recreation disturbance.

2.4.2.2.4.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative C throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-36. 

Within the Harquahala Management Unit, 

allocate:

Harquahala Mountains ACEC and lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to VRM Class II

objectives. 

Utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV. 

The rest of the Management Unit would 

be allocated as portrayed on Map 2-36. 

2.4.2.2.4.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Withdraw the Harquahala Mountains ACEC 

from mineral entry; also close it to mineral and 

geothermal leasing, and close to mineral 

material disposal.

Close Black Butte ACEC and lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics to mineral 

material disposal.

2.4.2.2.4.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Harquahala Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in the Special Area 

Designation Section 2.4.2.2.4.1.

WHAs are discussed in the Biological Resources 

Section 2.4.2.2.4.3.

SCRMAs and cultural resource sites allocated to 

Public Use are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.4.4.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.4.5.

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in Section

2.4.2.2.4.6.
Chapter 2

139

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Close tertiary, primitive, reclaiming, and singletrack vehicle routes, and washes except routes 

providing access to active and maintained 

facilities, waters, or other authorized uses 

on 63,400 acres allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics as shown on Map 2-50. Locate 

and develop as many as three hiking, equestrian, 

and bicycle trails, with total mileage not to 

exceed 10 miles. Close to motorized vehicle 

travel the raptor protection and Vulture obsidian 

areas within lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

within the Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC

(70,350 acres) that conflict with maintaining 

wildlife habitat and cultural resources.

Close all routes within the Black Butte ACEC.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate other vehicle 

routes that conflict with maintaining wildlife 

habitat and cultural resources to achieve the 

DFC. Prohibit building new roads and 

motorized routes.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate motorized 

vehicle routes within the Belmont/Big Horn 

Mountains WHA that conflict with maintaining 

wildlife habitat values to ensure achieving DFC.

Consider construction of hard-surfaced walking 

trails at selected sites within the 

Harquahala Mountains SCRMA for 

interpretation, education, and visitation.

2.4.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management 

Unit

The Harcuvar MU encompasses the easternmost 

end of the Harcuvar Mountains within the PD's 

administrative area. Most of the Harcuvar 

Mountain range is administered by the Lake 

Havasu Field Office. The Harcuvar MU is 

bounded on the west and north by the PD

boundary with the Lake Havasu Field Office, 

and on the east and south by the boundary 

between BLM- and non-BLM-administered 

lands (Map 2-51).

The Harcuvar MU contains the following lands:

53,200 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

6,280 acres of Arizona State land, and

3,360 acres of private land. 

2.4.2.2.5.1 Special Designations

Alternative C would propose no new Special 

Designations within the Harcuvar MU.

2.4.2.2.5.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

No lands have been identified for disposal 

within this MU.

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites are within 

this MU.

2.4.2.2.5.3 Biological Resources

No allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Harcuvar MU. 

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 
Chapter 2

140

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

2.4.2.2.5.4 Cultural Resources

No cultural resources would be allocated to 

public use within this MU.

2.4.2.2.5.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

The entire MU would be allocated as 

an Extensive Recreation Management Area.

2.4.2.2.5.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations 

VRM classes for Alternative C throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-36. 

Within the Harcuvar Management Unit:

the area along the Harcuvar Mountains 

would be allocated to VRM Class III 

and

the rest of the Management Unit would 

be allocated to VRM Class IV. 

2.4.2.2.5.7 Mineral Resource 

Management

This MU would have no mineral withdrawals or 

closures. 

2.4.2.2.5.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Harcuvar Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

2.4.2.2.6 Upper Agua Fria River 

Basin Management Unit

The Upper Agua Fria River Basin MU is 

sandwiched between the Bradshaw Mountains 

Ranger District and the Verde Ranger District of 

the Prescott National Forest. It stretches from 

Cordes Lakes in the south to the Town of 

Prescott Valley in the north (Map 2-52).

The Upper Agua Fria River Basin MU contains 

the following lands:

21,520 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

36,990 acres of Arizona State land, and

39,290 acres of private land.

Vision 

Citizens take an active role in guiding 

management of public lands in the Management 

Unit. A citizen working group, in partnership 

with government agencies, exists to determine 

appropriate uses of lands and find ways to 

achieve community goals. Strong citizen 

stewardship and land use ethics help to preserve 

health, diversity, and productivity of the 

remaining natural landscapes in the area. The 

MU's natural landscape and open space is 

maintained. Visitors to public lands can find 

recreation opportunities, scenic community 

backdrops, and access to the Black Canyon 

Trail.

2.4.2.2.6.1 Special Designations

Alternative C proposes no Special Designations

for the Upper Agua Fria River Basin MU.
Chapter 2

141

2.4.2.2.6.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Within this MU, the two methods used to 

determine lands available for disposal generated 

no parcels by the first method and 1,430 acres 

by the second method. For a description of the 

methods used, see the Lands and Realty 

discussion at the beginning of the description of 

Alternative C, for the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area. See the lands that are suitable 

for disposal on Map 2-40.

Communication Sites

There would be no designated communication 

sites within this MU.

2.4.2.2.6.3 Biological Resources

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

Land Use Allocation

Upper Agua Fria River Basin Habitat Corridor 

Wildlife Habitat Area

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain and enhance existing wildlife habitat 

and ensure unimpeded wildlife movement 

between BLM-managed Federal lands and 

adjacent National Forest lands.

Management Actions

Prohibit construction of new vehicle routes and 

fences.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate motorized 

vehicle routes that conflict with maintaining 

wildlife habitat values to ensure achieving the 

DFC.

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts.

2.4.2.2.6.4 Cultural Resources

No cultural resources would be allocated to 

public use within this MU.

2.4.2.2.6.5 Recreation 

Resources 

Land Use Allocation

Upper Agua Fria River Basin SRMA 

Desired Future Condition

Maintain the SRMA's natural landscape and 

open space. Offer visitors recreation 

opportunities, scenic community backdrops, and 

access to the Black Canyon Trail.

Maintaining or increasing the amount of land 

allocated to open space is one of the most 

effective ways to preserve existing natural 

values and recreation opportunities; and to 

extend new or increased levels of recreation 

activity in the future.

Emphasize semi-primitive motorized settings 

with roaded-natural along primary routes.

Management Actions 

Establish new trails, parking, and staging areas, 

where suitable, for hikers, equestrians, mountain 

bikers, ATVs, and four-wheel-drive enthusiasts.

Complete the non-motorized Black Canyon Trail 

and develop up to three trailheads or access 

points for trail users.
Chapter 2

142

Allocations for Visual Resource Management

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.6.6.

Administrative Actions

Work with citizen volunteer groups to complete 

a comprehensive strategy and a trails plan to 

select and to develop new single-use and multiuse hiking, equestrian, and OHV trails for all 

lands in the SRMA. Collaborate with the 

AGFD, Prescott National Forest, Yavapai 

County, and land managers of other trails to link 

trails to trails on BLM's land.

Land Use Allocation

The remaining BLM's lands outside any 

Management Unit would be allocated as an 

Extensive Recreation Management Area.

2.4.2.2.6.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations 

VRM classes for Alternative C throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-36. The 

entire Upper Agua Fria River 

Basin Management Unit would be allocated to 

VRM Class III objectives.

2.4.2.2.6.7 Mineral Resource 

Management

Alternative C proposes no mineral withdrawals 

or closures for the Upper Agua Fria River Basin 

MU.

2.4.2.2.6.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Upper Agua Fria River Basin Management 

Unit would be allocated as a limited use area, 

with motorized and mechanized vehicle 

uses limited to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions 

Wildlife Habitat Areas are discussed in the 

Biological Resources Section 2.4.2.2.6.3.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.6.5.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Establish new trails, where suitable, for hikers, 

equestrians, mountain bikers, ATVs, and fourwheel-drive enthusiasts.

Complete the non-motorized Black Canyon Trail 

and develop up to three trailheads or access 

points for trail users.

Prohibit construction of new vehicle routes.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate motorized 

vehicle routes that conflict with maintaining 

wildlife habitat values to ensure achieving the 

DFC.

2.4.2.2.7 Resource Allocations 

Not Within a Management Unit

2.4.2.2.7.1 Biological Resources

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 
Chapter 2

143

Land Use Allocation

Date Creek Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area 

(Map 2-53)

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain the wildlife/plant diversity and 

richness of the Sonoran Desert scrub vegetation 

community. Maintain unfragmented wildlife 

habitat that provides adequate forage, cover, and 

access to water for healthy wildlife populations.

Management Actions 

High-quality desert tortoise habitat would 

become a priority for land acquisition.

Prohibit building new vehicle routes and fences.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintenance of wildlife habitat 

values to ensure achieving the DFC.

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

priority in resolving resource conflicts.

2.4.2.2.7.2 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Skull Valley SRMA (Map 2-53)

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain the SRMA‘s landscape character while 

maintaining access to routes n the Prescott 

National Forest.

Management Actions

Transfer management of the SRMA to the 

adjacent Prescott National Forest.

2.4.2.2.7.3 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

These lands would be allocated as limited use 

areas, with motorized and mechanized vehicle 

uses limited to designated routes.

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

Wildlife Habitat Areas are discussed in the 

Biological Resources Section 2.4.2.2.7.1.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Prohibit construction of new vehicle routes.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate motorized 

vehicle routes that conflict with maintaining 

wildlife habitat values to ensure achieving the 

DFC.

2.5 Alternative D

The following discussion, along with the 

Desired Future Conditions, land use allocations, 

and management actions described in the 

Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives section of Chapter 2, comprise the 

total proposed Alternative D.

2.5.1 Agua Fria National 

Monument

Alternative D places the strongest emphasis on 

protecting natural landscapes and cultural 

resources by limiting land uses in Agua Fria 

National Monument. Management would 

limit motorized use in the monument and 
Chapter 2

144

close more areas to vehicles than under the other 

Alternatives. To preserve natural landscapes, 

access would be limited; Back Country RMZ 

would encompass most of the monument.

Alternative D would allocate most cultural 

resources for limited public use and areas would 

be developed for intensive public use. Within 

the monument, grazing would not be authorized 

on public lands also; larger areas will

be managed for more primitive recreation 

experiences and wilderness character.

2.5.1.1 Special Designations

Alternative D would designate one ACEC, the 

Agua Fria River Riparian Corridor (Map 2-56), 

to preserve the monument's riparian resources, 

and would study potential additions to the 

existing proposed wild and scenic river 

designation. This Alternative would maximize 

primitive and semi-primitive recreation 

opportunities, and emphasize non-motorized 

activities in backcountry settings. The 

management actions provide 

for protecting monument resources and 

incorporating the citizen proposal for wilderness 

characteristics within the monument.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Removes designation of the existing Perry Mesa 

and Larry Canyon ACECs because the 

monument‘s proclamation (Appendix 

A) provides for a higher level of protection than 

the ACECs and creates management across a 

more extensive landscape.

Designate the following ACEC:

Agua Fria River Riparian Corridor ACEC 

(13,070 acres)

Relevance

Nearly intact riparian network within a 

desert/semi-desert grassland transition zone.

Importance

Habitat supports many special status wildlife 

species, including endangered fish. Special 

values for studies of a desert riparian system.

Desired Future Condition 

Riparian areas are in proper functioning 

condition and provide high-quality habitat for a 

diversity of wildlife species, including fish.

The integrity of riparian areas and wildlife 

habitat are maintained and protected from 

degradation.

Management Actions

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintaining riparian and 

wildlife values to ensure achieving the DFC.

Designate the lands along Indian Creek as a 

priority for acquisition.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Study tributaries to the Agua Fria River to 

determine eligibility for WSR designation (Map 

2-56).

Back Country Byways

Alternative D proposes no back country byways.

2.5.1.2 Lands and Realty

Utility and Transportation Corridors

Eliminate the Black Canyon utility corridor from 

the monument. Continue to honor all existing 

rights-of-way and prior rights.

2.5.1.3 Biological Resources

Alternative D would allocate two Wildlife 

Habitat Areas and designate one ACEC for 

managing biological resources within Agua Fria 

National Monument. Alternative D would drop 

Larry Canyon ACEC because the monument‘s 
Chapter 2

145

proclamation (Appendix A) provides for a 

higher level of protection than an ACEC and 

management across a more extensive landscape.

The actions for the ACECs are described in the 

Special Area Designations section and shown 

on Map 2-56. The management actions for the 

WHAs, also shown on Map 2-57, are outlined 

below.

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

Land Use Allocation

Pronghorn Movement Corridor Wildlife Habitat 

Area.

Pronghorn Fawning Habitat Wildlife Habitat 

Area.

Desired Future Condition

Unfragmented pronghorn habitat that provides 

adequate forage, cover, and access to water for 

healthy pronghorn populations.

Management Actions

To assure achieving the DFC, close or suitably 

mitigate vehicle routes that may:

cross known pronghorn movement 

corridors and 

have a type and a volume of use which 

modify pronghorn behavior in ways that 

fragment their habitat. 

Continue to use prescribed fire to improve 

pronghorn habitat.

Develop no new recreation sites in pronghorn 

movement corridors and fawning.

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts.

Since Alternative D proposes ending livestock 

grazing, remove all fences, and authorize no new 

ones.

2.5.1.4 Cultural Resources

Alternative D would minimally increase public 

access to cultural sites. Interpretive 

development and educational activities would 

be focused on the Pueblo la Plata area (Map 2-

58). This area would be allocated to a public use 

SCRMA as shown in Table 2-5.

Descriptions of potential improvements and 

activities within special cultural 

resource management areas are described in the 

Cultural Resources description of the 

Management Common to Agua Fria National 

Monument section of Chapter 2. High use 

represents the most intensive degree of 

interpretive development, and Moderate use 

involves less intensive development of access 

and interpretive facilities. All areas of the 

monument not shown as a Moderate use 

SCRMA on Map 2-58 are considered as areas of 

low public use that would not be available for 

on-the-ground interpretive development or 

commercial tours.

Table 2-5. Alternative D: Cultural 

Resource Public-Use Areas

Level of 

Public Use

Locations/Site

High No areas of the monument

Moderate

Pueblo la Plata and Fort Silver 

(Pueblo la Plata Complex) on 

Perry Mesa

Low

Public use of archaeological 

sites would be limited in all 

other areas not described 

above
Chapter 2

146

2.5.1.5 Recreation Resources

In Alternative D, the entire monument would be 

allocated to a Special Recreation Management 

Area with three Recreation Management Zones 

within it. These zones would include a Back 

Country RMZ of 68,380 acres to manage and 

maintain the natural landscape character in the 

Agua Fria River Canyon, tributaries, washes, 

and adjacent mesas (Map 2-58). A Passage 

RMZ of 990 acres along designated vehicle 

routes would pass through or provide access into 

the Back Country RMZ. The rest of the 

monument would be designated a Front Country 

RMZ (1,530 acres), where more focus would 

be placed on recreation and interpretive 

opportunities. Descriptions of these zones and 

Desired Future Conditions and management 

actions that apply to all Alternatives can be 

found in the Recreation and Public Access 

discussion of the Management Common to Agua 

Fria National Monument section of Chapter 2.

Land Use Allocation

Front Country Recreation Management Zone 

of 1,530 acres 

Desired Future Condition 

See Desired Future Condition description in 

Section 2.7.2.7 of the Management Common to 

Agua Fria National Monument section of this 

chapter.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.5.1.6. 

Throughout the monument, recreation 

concession leases, vendor permits, and Special 

Recreation Permits would not be authorized.

Dispersed Camping:

Allow camping at designated sites only. 

Camping permits could be required if 

resource damage occurs that inhibits 

achieving resource DFCs or threatens 

resources protected by proclamation, or 

if health and safety issues emerge. If 

damage continues, more 

limitations might be required, 

including temporary or permanent area 

closures, limiting camping to designated 

sites, or seasonal limitations or closures. 

No developed campgrounds.

Campfires:

Prohibit campfires within 1⁄4 mile of 

intensive and moderate public-use 

archaeological sites. 

Prohibit campfires at archaeological 

sites, including petroglyph (rock art) 

sites. 

Allow campfires at designated 

campsites. 

Prohibit collection of woody material 

for campfires. Require campfire 

wood to be brought in from outside the 

monument. 

Recreational target shooting would be 

prohibited.

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use:

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in the 

Travel Management

Section 2.5.1.8. 

Land Use Allocation

Back Country Recreation Management Zone of 

68,380 acres 

Desired Future Condition

The natural landscape of the Agua Fria River 

Canyon, tributaries, and washes (Map 2-58) is 

maintained. See Desired Future Condition 

description in Section 2.7.2.7 of the 
Chapter 2

147

Management Common to Agua Fria National 

Monument section of this chapter.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.5.1.6. 

Retain the motorized river crossings at Kelton 

Ranch, EZ Ranch, Horseshoe Ranch, and Cross 

Y Ranch.

Throughout the monument, provide no 

recreation concession leases, issue no vendor 

permits, and authorize no Special Recreation 

Permits.

Dispersed Camping:

require a permit and

limit camping to designated sites only. 

No developed campgrounds.

Campfires would be prohibited.

Recreational target shooting would be 

prohibited.

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use:

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in the 

Travel Management

Section 2.5.1.8.

Land Use Allocation

Passage Recreation Management Zone of 990 

acres.

Desired Future Condition 

See Desired Future Condition description in 

Section 2.7.2.7 of the Management Common to 

Agua Fria National Monument section of this 

chapter.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.5.1.6.

Throughout the monument, provide no 

recreation concession leases, issue no vendor 

permits, and authorize no Special Recreation 

Permits.

Dispersed Camping:

Allow camping at designated sites only. 

Camping permits could be required if 

resource damage occurs that inhibits 

achieving resource DFCs or threatens 

resources protected by proclamation, or 

if health and safety issues emerge. If 

damage continues, more 

limitations might be required, 

including temporary or permanent area 

closures, limiting camping to designated 

sites, or seasonal limitations or closures. 

Prohibit camping at archaeological sites, 

including petroglyph (rock art) sites. 

Allow camping if at least 1⁄4 mile from 

intense or moderate public-use 

archaeological sites. 

Camping would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile from water sources "...containing 

water in such a place that wildlife or 

domestic stock will be denied access to 

the only reasonably available water 

(Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping). 

Prohibit vehicles from pulling off routes 

in posted special areas containing 

sensitive resources.

No developed campgrounds.

Campfires:

Prohibit campfires within 1⁄4 mile of 

intensive and moderate public-use 

archaeological sites. 

Prohibit campfires at archaeological 

sites, including petroglyph (rock art) 

sites. 
Chapter 2

148

Allow campfires at designated 

campsites. 

Allow no collection of woody material 

for campfires. Require that any wood 

for campfires be brought in from outside 

the national monument. 

Recreational target shooting would be 

prohibited.

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use:

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in the 

Travel 

Management Section 2.5.1.8.

Administrative Actions

Collect site-specific baseline data to (1) 

determine social and resource impacts of 

recreation uses, (2) to establish monitoring needs 

and frequencies, and (3) to detect change.

Where monument resources are unacceptably 

affected, implement more management actions, 

ranging from further restrictions to closure.

2.5.1.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations 

VRM classes for Alternative D throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-

59. Within the monument, the Front Country 

RMZ, totaling 1,530 acres, would be allocated to 

VRM Class III objectives and the Back Country 

and Passage RMZs would be allocated to VRM 

Class II.

2.5.1.7 Rangeland Management

Land Use Allocation

Make allotments unavailable for livestock 

grazing and cancel all current grazing

authorizations.

Desired Future Condition

Watersheds are in properly functioning 

conditions, including their upland, riparian, and 

aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions 

support infiltration, storage, and release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform.

Maintain ecological processes to support healthy

biotic populations and communities.

No grazing authorizations would be 

administered within Agua Fria National 

Monument. The removal of all livestock would 

result in the rapid achievement of the Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health (Land Health 

Standards).

Management Actions

Build fencing around grazed lands to control 

livestock incursions. 

Remove range-related improvements on public 

lands that serve no purpose for other resources. 

This removal would reduce the visual impact of 

former grazing operations.

2.5.1.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The entire monument is allocated as Limited to 

Designated routes.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. Cross-country motorized travel is 

prohibited except in the case of an emergency or 

for approved administrative purposes.

Within Front Country

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Use:
Chapter 2

149

Develop trails as needed to enhance 

resources and recreation experiences 

and to protect monument values. 

All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

Make trail development a priority at 

archaeological sites developed for 

interpretive use and visitation. 

Consider other trails to enhance visitor 

access and enjoyment of monument 

resources. Such trails might include 

self-guided nature and cultural resource 

trails, trails to interpreted sites, or longer 

trails linking multiple sites for day or 

multiple day trips. 

Use packed soil, crushed stone, and 

other natural or synthetic materials. 

Design trails to fit the environment. 

Build loop, connector, and linear 

trails, depending on the established trail 

and resource objectives. 

Build trails to maintain connectivity to 

recreation opportunities, such as 

hunting, equestrian activities, 

hiking, and viewing cultural sites. 

Build trails to link with other connector 

trails beyond the monument's border. 

Where trail linkages conform 

to monument values and do not impair 

protection of monument resources, 

explore opportunities to link the 

monument's network of non-motorized 

trails to trails on other BLM-managed 

lands, or with other adjoining 

jurisdictions, including Tonto and 

Prescott National Forests, Yavapai 

County, and local communities. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to 

a natural state. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

Evaluate new motorized vehicle 

routes on a case-by-case basis, with 

determinations based on protecting and 

enhancing monument values. 

Enhance existing routes north of Bloody 

Basin Road to provide greater motorized 

recreation opportunities.

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 

All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Travel Management

Section 2.7.2.10. 

Manage OHV access to provide for a 

variety of use experiences, including

access for public visitation of cultural 

and biological resources. 

Within Back Country

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Use: 

No new trails would be built in the Back 

Country RMZ except to mitigate 

resource conflicts or concerns. Trail 

construction would use the least 

intrusive method to mitigate the 

conflict. A trail might simply be 

marked with fiberglass posts. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

Build no new routes within the Back 

Country RMZ. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 

Manage the Back Country RMZ as a 

non-motorized area. All vehicles are 

restricted to passage zones. 

Within Passage

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Use: 
Chapter 2

150

Develop trails as needed to enhance 

resources and recreation experiences 

and to protect monument values.

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

Motorized route construction would be 

considered only as mitigation for 

resource conflicts. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Off-Highway Vehicles:

All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Travel 

Management Section 2.7.2.10. 

Manage OHV access to provide for a 

variety of use experiences, including 

viewing of scenic, cultural and 

biological resources. 

Implementation Actions

Public Access

An evaluation process was used to establish a 

designated public access and route system to 

support resource objectives consistent with 

Alternative D and to protect monument 

resources. The results of the evaluation are 

shown in Map 2-60. A summary of route status 

and length under Alternative D is shown below.

Routes Open 48 miles

Routes Closed 123 miles

New Routes 0 miles

2.5.1.9 Wilderness Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the monument, 37,571 acres would be 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

as shown on Map 2-71. 

Desired Future Condition

In addition to the DFC and management actions 

in the Wilderness Characteristics discussion of 

the Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter, the following DFC 

also applies:

Lands within the monument allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics contain 

outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

naturalness. Maintain these characteristics and 

provide opportunities for unconfined primitive 

recreation, adventure, and discovery. Important 

wildlife populations and habitat are also within 

these lands and recognized as an 

important component of the naturalness and 

actively managed.

Management Actions

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.1.6.

Authorize no new rights-of-way.

2.5.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area

Alternative D emphasizes natural landscapes and 

non-motorized recreation, allowing visitors to 

experience more areas in their natural setting.

Alternative D would provide more areas for nonmotorized use than the other Alternatives 

and close more areas to vehicles, mining, and 

grazing. More management is dedicated to 

maintaining primitive recreation opportunities.

The MUs for Alternative D, are shown in Map 

2-61.
Chapter 2

151

2.5.2.1 Management Applicable 

to the Entire BradshawHarquahala under this 

Alternative

2.5.2.1.1 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Land tenure decisions determine which lands 

will be retained and which will be proposed for 

disposal or acquisition. Land tenure decisions 

must achieve the goals, standards, and objectives 

outlined in the land use plan.

No lands have been found to be potentially 

suitable for disposal under Alternative D. If 

Alternative D were chosen, any proposed land 

disposal, including the disposal of scattered 

lands outside the planning area, would require a 

plan amendment.

Lands considered for potential acquisition would 

include State and private lands (willing seller) 

within the planning area that are in accordance 

with the resource management prescriptions in 

this RMP. Lands considered for acquisition 

must meet (1) the criteria described in the Lands 

and Realty discussion of the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section 

of Chapter 2 and (2) the resource program 

objectives of Alternative D.

Utility and Transportation Corridors

Currently designated corridors (Map 2-

62) would meet the demand 

for intensifying the power grid, 

provided consistently with the utility 

regulations of the Arizona Corporation 

Commission. The Black Canyon's multi-use 

corridor would be eliminated from Agua 

Fria National Monument. (See the Utility 

and Transportation Corridor discussion in 

the Lands and Realty section of Alternative 

D, Agua Fria National Monument).

2.5.2.1.2 Rangeland 

Management

Land Use Allocation

Make all livestock allotments unavailable for 

grazing and cancel current livestock 

authorizations.

Desired Future Condition 

Watersheds are in properly functioning 

conditions, including their upland, riparian, and 

aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions 

support infiltration, storage, and release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform.

Maintain ecological processes to support healthy 

biotic populations and communities.

Management Actions

Build fencing around grazed lands to control 

livestock incursions. 

Remove public land range-related 

improvements that serve no purpose for 

managing other resources.

Require cadastral surveys to establish the 

location of the public lands and 

delineate property boundaries to properly locate 

boundary fencing and to enforce the closure.

2.5.2.1.3 Mineral Resources 

Management

The following descriptions of mineral types 

include information on mining closures.

Management Actions

Leasable Minerals

The following limitations to leasable 

minerals are shown on Map 2-63.
Chapter 2

152

Close any reconveyed lands to mineral and 

geothermal leasing by public land order.

Close the following areas to mineral and 

geothermal leasing:

Black Mesa ACEC, 

Tule Creek ACEC, 

Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC, 

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC, 

Vulture Mountains ACEC,

Belmont-Big Horn Mountains ACEC, 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC , 

Black Butte ONA ACEC, and

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. 

All other lands would be open to mineral and 

geothermal leasing.

Saleable Minerals (Mineral Materials)

The following limitations to saleable 

minerals are shown on Map 2-64.

Close any reconveyed lands to mineral material 

disposal by public land order.

Close the following areas to mineral material 

disposal:

Black Mesa ACEC, 

Tule Creek ACEC, 

Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC, 

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC, 

Vulture Mountains ACEC, 

Belmont-Big Horn Mountains ACEC, 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC, 

Black Butte ONA ACEC, and

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. 

All other lands would be open to mineral 

material disposal.

Locatable Minerals

The following limitations to locatable 

minerals are shown on Map 2-65.

Withdraw any reconveyed lands from the 

mining laws by public land order.

Withdraw the following areas from the mining 

laws:

Black Mesa ACEC, 

Tule Creek ACEC, 

Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC, 

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC, 

Vulture Mountains ACEC, 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC, 

Black Butte ONA ACEC, and

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. 

Small tract lands would remain withdrawn from 

the mining laws.

Withdraw from the mining laws all public lands 

(including subsurface) within incorporated 

municipal boundaries.

Unless currently segregated or withdrawn, all 

remaining lands would remain open under the 

mining laws.

2.5.2.1.4 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

All public lands within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be allocated 

as limited use areas, with motorized and 

mechanized vehicle uses limited to designated 

routes and mechanized uses.

Desired Future Conditions

Define, designate, implement, and monitor 

a comprehensive travel management network 

affording a range of high-quality and diverse 

motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities. The network would consist of a 

system of areas, roads, routes and/or trails. The 

travel management network and associated 

recreation opportunities would be consistent 

with other resource management objectives and 

recreation settings for the area.
Chapter 2

153

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Administrative Actions

A route evaluation and designation process, 

similar to one described in Appendix D, will be 

used to establish a designated public access and 

route system within the Black Canyon 

Management Unit to support resource objectives 

consistent with Alternative D. 

Develop comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management Plans for the 

management units and other public lands within 

the planning area. These plans would 

implement route designations on the public 

lands.

2.5.2.2 Management Units

Alternative D would use seven MUs for 

presenting land use allocations and management 

actions. These MUs are summarized in the 

following text. As noted, areas within the MUs 

that do not receive specific land use allocations 

would be administered according to the DFC 

and management actions presented under 

Management Units and in the Management 

Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area section of Chapter 2.

The document sections discussing the seven 

Management Units and maps on which they 

appear are as follows:

Black Canyon MU, Section

2.5.2.2.1, Map 2-47. 

Castle Hot Springs MU, Section

2.5.2.2.2, Map 2-66.

Hassayampa MU, Section 2.5.2.2.3, 

Map 2-67.

Harquahala MU, Section 2.5.2.2.4, Map 

2-68.

Harcuvar MU, Section 2.5.2.2.5, Map 2-

51. 

Peeples Valley MU, Section

2.5.2.2.6, Map 2-69. 

Upper Agua Fria Basin MU, Section

2.5.2.2.7, Map 2-70. 

2.5.2.2.1 Black Canyon 

Management Unit

The Black Canyon MU stretches from the 

southern end of Table Mesa in the south to 

Cordes Junction in the north. It is bounded 

by Agua Fria National Monument and Tonto 

National Forest to the east, and Prescott National 

Forest to the west (Map 2-47). The Black 

Canyon MU contains the following land:

68,730 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

12,600 acres of Arizona State land, 

6,780 acres of private land, and

1,100 acres of county parklands in both 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. 

2.5.2.2.1.1 Special Designations

Area of Critical Environmental Concern

Black Mesa ACEC (5,540 acres)

Relevance

Diverse types of significant archaeological sites 

occupied over the past 2,000 years, including 

sites that may have been ancestral to the Perry 

Mesa Tradition that was dominant in Agua Fria 

National Monument.

Importance

The area includes the Running Deer site and 

other prehistoric and historic sites with 

important scientific values and relationships to 

sites in the adjacent national monument.
Chapter 2

154

Management Actions

Install fences or barriers to keep livestock out of 

the Running Deer site.

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry, close 

to mineral and geothermal leasing, and close to 

mineral material disposal.

Implement measures to protect cultural sites.

Limit commercial tours and special recreation 

permits to those conducted for educational 

purposes in conjunction with site recording or 

protection projects.

Close all routes that lead directly to significant 

sites.

Administrative Actions

Complete Class III (intensive) cultural 

inventories of previously unsurveyed areas and 

permit BLM-approved scientific studies.

Continue to patrol sites with volunteer help and 

add this area to the territory regularly monitored 

by the Civil Air Patrol.

Nomination to National Recreation Trail 

System

Black Canyon Trail

Desired Future Condition

Provide for sustainable use of the trail network. 

An ever-increasing urban population will seek 

out the trail for various recreation benefits and 

outcomes. Promote the preservation of the 

scenery, public access to the trail, safe travel on 

the trail, appreciation and enjoyment of the open 

space, and historic resources of the Black 

Canyon corridor. A National Recreation Trail 

should be established primarily within urban 

areas, secondarily, within scenic areas, and 

along historic travel routes of the areas.

Management Actions

Evaluate the Black Canyon Trail for inclusion 

into the National Recreation Trail System, as 

described in the National Trails System Act of 

2002 (P.L.90-543).

Issue a right-of-way agreement for the trail and 

facilities to preserve their access and long-term 

character.

Acquire easements, rights-of-way, or both on 

non-Federal lands where the trail or facilities 

must cross or be built.

Any future land tenure action will recognize the 

trail and facilities and will retain a 1⁄4-mile 

corridor (1/8 mile on each side) along the trail 

and any ancillary facility, as well as public 

access to them by easement, right-of-way, deed 

restriction, or other suitable means.

2.5.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative D proposes no land tenure 

adjustments within the Black Canyon MU 

because no lands have been proposed 

for disposal or acquisition.

Communication Sites

Only one designated communication site is 

located within this MU. Retain the Black 

Canyon City communication site, subject to 

valid existing rights.

Utility and Transportation Corridors

Extend the Black Canyon multi-use corridor so 

that the corridor is continuous north and south 

across BLM's lands within this MU.

2.5.2.2.1.3 Biological Resources

No biological resource allocations would be 

made within this MU. Biological resources 

would be subject to management guidance in 
Chapter 2

155

Section 2.7.1.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter and in Section

2.7.3.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. 

2.5.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Black Canyon Corridor SCRMA

Desired Future Condition

Make available a variety of prehistoric and 

historic sites for interpretation, educational uses, 

and public visitation. For further information on 

public use of cultural resources, see Appendix E. 

Management Actions 

Implement a combination of some or all of 

following or other actions at selected sites:

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites, 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and registers, and

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs. 

Stabilize, repair, and maintain sites.

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours, conducted with protective 

stipulations in accordance with BLM's 

regulations and, where required, special 

recreation permits.

Administrative Actions

Select sites for public use by considering the 

following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

site condition and feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to 

withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would help 

develop sites for public use.

Cooperate with agencies, tribes, and local 

communities in supporting heritage tourism 

programs that benefit local economies. Develop 

historic properties for heritage tourism to 

contribute to their long-term preservation and 

productive use.

2.5.2.2.1.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Table Mesa SRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

Promote a semi-primitive motorized setting. 

Recreational pursuits would impinge minimally 

on others in the area. Provide open space where 

users can learn and appreciate the natural 

environment while enjoying social contacts or 

developing new skills. Assure easy access to 

BLM lands. Provide a natural gateway into 

Maricopa County. 

Management Actions

Manage for intensive camping, OHV use, 

equestrian activities, and casual use mining. The 
Chapter 2

156

SRMA would offer a diverse network of 

motorized single and two-track routes for 

general motorized recreation use, commercial 

use, and organized OHV events. 

Emphasize acceptable dust control and 

compatibility with neighboring communities and 

landowners.

Emphasize semi-primitive motorized recreation 

settings. Concentrate users in some areas but 

emphasize dispersed use.

Develop some facilities and promote preserving 

the natural environment. Develop the fewest 

sites needed to accomplish resource 

management objectives.

Designate vehicle routes within this SRMA for 

general motorized recreation use, commercial 

use, and organized OHV events.

Locate and develop a staging/camping area for 

the following purposes:

o meeting the high recreation demand, 

o parking and unloading of OHVs, 

o overnight camping, 

o event operations, 

o informational signing, 

o dust abatement, and

o human health and safety. 

Limit to 10 acres the area of exposed barren soil.

Prohibit motorized competitive races.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.1.7.

Administrative Actions

Conduct an objective, systematic, and 

comprehensive site inventory of the SRMA to 

determine existing site-specific environmental 

and social impacts of prospecting clubs, OHVs, 

equestrian activities, and other recreation uses.

Assessments would determine site-specific 

desired conditions and define standards so 

monitoring plans could be developed to manage 

camping and other recreation uses.

Land Use Allocation

The remaining lands within the Management 

Unit would be allocated as an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

2.5.2.2.1.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the Black Canyon Management Unit, 

14,880 acres would be allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

71. 

Desired Future Condition 

Promote non-motorized and primitive recreation 

experiences, with open space and natural 

landscapes. Retain undeveloped landscapes and 

the area‘s remote character. Preserve the area's 

outstanding solitude and primitive recreation 

experiences.

Management Actions

Close all secondary, tertiary, reclaiming, and 

single-track vehicle routes and washes to 

maintain recreation settings and associated 

landscapes of semi-primitive non-motorized. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.1.7.

Manage the Black Canyon Trail alignment as a 

non-motorized trail.

Locate and develop non-motorized trails to link 

with community trail systems.

Withdraw from mineral location.

Prohibit mineral material disposals and 

vegetation sales.
Chapter 2

157

Administrative Actions

Conduct a detailed baseline inventory of 

disturbances. Determine detailed and sitespecific standards using this baseline to 

maintain suitable levels of recreation disturbance 

to achieve the desired future settings.

2.5.2.2.1.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative D throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-59. 

Within the Black Canyon Management Unit, 

allocate:

Table Mesa SRMA to VRM Class III 

objectives. 

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to VRM Class I 

objectives. 

Utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV. 

Throughout the rest of the Management 

Unit, VRM classes would be allocated 

as portrayed on Map 2-59. 

2.5.2.2.1.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Withdraw Black Mesa ACEC from mineral 

entry, close to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and close to mineral material disposal. 

Withdraw lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics from mineral entry and close to 

mineral material disposal.

2.5.2.2.1.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Black Canyon Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.1.1.

SCRMAs and cultural resource sites allocated to 

Public Use are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.1.4.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.1.5.

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in Section

2.5.2.2.1.6.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Close all secondary, tertiary, reclaiming, and 

single-track vehicle routes and washes on 14,880 

acres allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics as shown on Map 2-47.

Manage the Black Canyon Trail alignment as a 

non-motorized trail. Locate and develop nonmotorized trails to link with community trail 

systems.

Establish the Table Mesa SRMA, as allocated in 

the Recreation section of this plan, and manage 

for a diverse network of motorized single and 

two-track routes for general motorized 

recreation use, commercial use, and organized 

OHV events. Designate vehicle routes within 

this SRMA for general motorized recreation use, 

commercial use, and organized OHV events.
Chapter 2

158

Close all routes that lead directly to significant 

sites within the Black Mesa ACEC. 

Consider construction of hard-surfaced walking 

trails at selected cultural sites within the Black 

Canyon Corridor SCRMA for interpretation, 

education, and visitation of prehistoric and 

historic sites.

2.5.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs 

Management Unit

The Castle Hot Springs MU is bounded by State 

Route 74 (the Carefree Highway) to the south, 

Prescott National Forest to the north, Black 

Canyon MU to the east, and Hassayampa MU to 

the west (Map 2-66).

The Castle Hot Springs MU contains the 

following lands:

112,430 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

53,730 acres of Arizona State land, 

32,560 acres of private land, 

22,870 acres of county parklands in both 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties (Lake 

Pleasant Regional Park), and

1,100 acres of Bureau of Reclamation 

lands not in Lake Pleasant Regional 

Park. 

Vision

During the scoping phase of this plan where 

BLM emphasized collaborative planning, 

a diverse group of interested citizens including: 

private landowners, OHV recreationists, several 

hiking clubs, and conservationists, and others 

saw the need to address issues in this area and 

formed into the Bradshaw Foothills Coalition. 

This is the area where the public plays on their 

OHVs, an area where private landowner 

concerns increased due to recreation activities 

and the lack of respect to private property, and 

an area bordered by the Lake Pleasant Regional 

Park and Hell‘s Canyon Wilderness where 

conflicting uses emerged. 

This group is engaged in a collective effort to 

conserve the ecological, cultural, open space, 

and recreation values of the MU, so that it 

remains a place where people want to live, work, 

and recreate. Strong citizen stewardship and 

land use ethics help to preserve health, diversity, 

and productivity of the natural landscapes in the 

area. The values of open space and scenic and 

visual quality are emphasized. Recreational, 

cultural, and biological assets are maintained.

The MU‘s scenic and natural landscape settings 

are maintained while offering visitors a diverse 

array of recreation opportunities, including both 

human-powered and motorized-based activities.

The following principles are emphasized:

maintaining the rural and natural setting, 

protecting visual resources, 

allowing responsible recreation use 

in suitable areas, 

protecting natural and cultural resources, 

and 

recognizing and protecting private 

property rights.

A healthy, properly functioning, and naturalappearing landscape is preserved. Multiple uses 

that conform to and support the overall 

community vision continue. 

A system of OHV and hiking trails exist 

that afford a multitude of opportunities 

for mountain bike, four-wheel drive, ATV, and 

motorcycle enthusiasts.

2.5.2.2.2.1 Special Designations

Current Special Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with management actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section of 

this chapter.
Chapter 2

159

Tule Creek ACEC (640 acres)

Relevance

Tule Creek ACEC contains significant historic 

and cultural values, including the Fort Tule site, 

a prehistoric hilltop ruin occupied from A.D. 

1100 to 1300, and a home-site occupied by 

miners in the 1920s and 1930s. Tule Creek is a 

rare Sonoran Desert riparian system dominated 

by emergent vegetation and occupied by the 

endangered Gila topminnow.

Importance 

The Fort Tule cultural site was probably used as 

a significant connection in a regional 

communication system based on signaling 

among hilltop sites. Its role in the 

communication system can offer important 

information on prehistoric social systems during 

the era it was used.

Tule Creek and its sensitive biological 

resources are extremely vulnerable to 

disturbance and degradation from vehicle use, 

mining, and livestock grazing. Continued 

protection of Tule Creek is important to the 

recovery of the endangered Gila topminnow.

Desired Future Condition 

Cultural resources, endangered species habitat, 

and the integrity of the riparian area are 

protected from degradation.

Management Actions

Close the ACEC to motor vehicles.

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry, close 

to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral 

material disposal.

Administrative Decision

Continue to patrol archaeological sites and, 

where needed, implement measures to protect 

sites.

Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC (9,080 acres)

Relevance

The area is characterized by highly scenic 

natural Sonoran Desert landscapes, primitive 

recreation and solitude opportunities, and desert 

washes without motorized use. It includes 

occupied desert tortoise habitat and is part of a 

wild burro HMA. 

Importance

A quiet and natural landscape with little 

evidence of human disturbance. Scarce but 

accessible backcountry primitive recreation 

experiences for Phoenix and Peoria residents.

A portion of the area is within the city limits of 

the City of Peoria, a rapidly growing urban area.

Maintains wildlife and burro habitat and open 

space in a rapidly expanding, urban 

environment.

Desired Future Condition

Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation 

setting throughout the entire area.

A diversity of non-motorized trail-based 

opportunities in a natural setting.

Broad expanses of natural appearing Sonoran 

Desert landscapes that continue to contribute to 

the open space, primitive recreation, and 

solitude opportunities near the urban centers of 

the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area.

Management Actions

Close all secondary, tertiary, primitive, singletrack, washes, and reclaiming vehicle routes.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.2.6.
Chapter 2

160

Designate and build non-motorized trails to link 

with other non-motorized trails in the area.

Build non-motorized trails with up to three 

trailheads, offering loop hikes, 

connection to other trails.

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry, close 

to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral 

material disposal.

Prohibit establishing new rights-of-way.

Prohibit vegetation sales.

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC (4,270 acres)

Relevance

Open space and biological resources, including 

desert tortoise habitat and potential desert 

bighorn sheep habitat.

Importance

Highly scenic area with high-quality wildlife 

habitat, undisturbed by vehicle routes and 

human activities.

Desired Future Condition

Maintain semi-primitive non-otorized recreation 

setting.

Maintain the scenic natural landscape in current 

form.

Maintain the high quality and unfragmented 

wildlife habitat.

Management Actions

Close all reclaimed vehicle routes except those 

needed to facilitate public access. Designate 

routes needed for access through a structured 

evaluation process, such as that in Appendix D.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.2.6.

Withdraw the whole ACEC from mineral 

entry, close to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and mineral material disposal.

Prohibit vegetation sales.

Prohibit building of new fences and vehicle 

routes.

Build no new recreation sites.

Since Alternative D proposes cessation of 

grazing, remove all fences except those needed 

to keep livestock from wandering in 

from adjoining grazed lands. 

2.5.2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative D proposes no land tenure 

adjustment decisions for the Castle Hot Springs 

MU since no lands have been proposed for 

disposal or acquisition.

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites would be 

located within this MU.

2.5.2.2.2.3 Biological Resources

No biological resource allocations would be 

made within the Castle Hot Springs MU. 

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area
Chapter 2

161

2.5.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources

No cultural resources would be allocated to 

public use within this MU.

2.5.2.2.2.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Castle Hot Springs Regional Special Recreation 

Management Area 

Desired Future Condition

Manage Castle Hot Springs MU outside of the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA (described 

below) as a regional special recreation 

management area, supported by local and 

regional communities and managed by BLM in 

partnership with communities and local 

governments. These communities and 

governments have a vested interest in open 

space, outdoor-based recreation opportunities, 

and local and regional air quality.

Management emphasis stresses meeting a wide 

range of regional recreation needs while doing 

the following:

maintaining the quality of life for local 

communities, 

preserving open space and natural 

landscapes, and

ensuring resource conservation. 

The area would have an array of recreation 

settings (rural, roaded-natural, semi-primitive 

motorized, and semi-primitive non-motorized) 

and the following opportunities:

intense motorized activity, 

permitted recreation events, 

developed facilities, 

highly dispersed motorized recreation, 

remote semi-primitive and wilderness, 

and

non-motorized recreation. 

Management Actions

Locate and develop facilities, staging areas, 

trails, signage, trailheads, and other sites, where 

needed, for resource protection or for 

maintaining recreation opportunities. Develop 

up to three designated staging and camping 

areas to meet high recreation demand, and 

provide for the following:

parking, 

OHV unloading, 

overnight camping, 

event operations, 

informational signing, 

dust abatement, and

human health and safety. 

Limit to 100 acres the area of exposed barren 

soil.

Designate vehicle routes through a structured 

evaluation process such as in Appendix 

D within 5 years of the signing of this plan. Use 

a structured evaluation process to redesignate 

routes, as suitable, as conditions change because 

of:

increased use, 

expanding wildland-urban interface 

(WUI), 

dust standard compliance, and

other factors that affect vehicle routes. 

Most motorized use in the Baldy Mountain 

ONA ACEC, the Hieroglyphic Mountains 

SRMA, and the BLM's lands west, east, and 

south of Quintero would be mitigated, or 

eliminated within 1 to 20 years.

Focus mitigation to reduce vehicular sources of 

noise and dust from BLM's lands affecting 

adjoining developing private lands.

Emphasize a semi-primitive non-motorized 

management setting for Baldly Mountain ONA 

ACEC immediately upon plan approval. 

Implement a phase-in of OHV closures in 

response to citizens' requests, conflicts with 
Chapter 2

162

residents and communities, and the need to meet 

air quality and dust compliance standards.

Close areas to motorized use when needed to 

comply with county and City of Peoria land 

management and recreation use laws and 

ordinances for these areas.

Designated vehicle routes within the regional 

recreation management area would be available 

for up to four permitted commercial and 

competitive OHV events monthly. Such uses 

would eventually be phased out in 

areas adjoining the Quintero and Maughn 

properties, and other commercial or residential 

areas as they are developed.

Work closely with law enforcement 

authorities with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Yavapai County, Maricopa County, 

City of Peoria, and other agencies with 

jurisdiction to enhance visitor safety; improve 

resource protection; or ensure BLM's 

compliance with county, State, or Federal 

environmental laws.

Designate and build up to 100 miles of nonmotorized trail.

Designate 100 to 200 miles of motorized use 

routes (single-track, ATV, and four-wheel drive) 

with one-way trips, destination trips, loops, and 

tours within the MU.

Manage recreational target shooting consistent 

with Recreational Target Shooting in the 

Recreation discussion of the Management 

Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area section of this Chapter.

Site, plan, and develop multi-use trails and foot, 

bike, and horse trails linking Wickenburg and 

Lake Pleasant Regional Park, with other links to 

Peoria and Phoenix trail systems and the Black 

Canyon Trail.

Over a span of 15 to 20 years, as the adjacent 

City of Peoria, the Maughn and Quintero 

properties, and the Lake Pleasant area are 

commercially and residentially developed and 

built out; phase out, mitigate, or eliminate 

conflicting motorized use in these areas.

Areas subject to phased-out motorized vehicle 

use would be located within a triangle defined 

by Castle Hot Springs/Lake Pleasant Road, 

Morristown Road, and State Route Highway 74. 

(This area essentially consists of the 

Hieroglyphic Mountain SRMA and the Baldy 

Mountain ONA). The Baldy Mountain area 

would become non-motorized immediately.

Motorized use in the public land areas south and 

east of Quintero would be reduced or phased out 

in 1 to 15 years. The area west of the Hells 

Canyon Wilderness and east of the Maughn 

properties (essentially the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains SRMA proposal) would become 

mainly a non-motorized use area in 10 to 20 

years. Open other parts of the area to dispersed 

motorized and non-motorized activities, but 

intensively manage such uses with a significant 

BLM ground presence in signing, facilities, law 

enforcement, and staffing.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.2.6.

Administrative Actions

Designate Castle Hot Springs MU as a regional 

recreation management area. If found suitable, 

recommend this area for inclusion into a BLMadministered system of national recreation areas 

or as a national conservation area.

Charter a citizen, Government, and organizationbased working group to guide the area's 

management; including community groups, the 

City of Peoria, Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, 

and other interested parties.

Land Use Allocation

Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA

Desired Future Condition

Manage the Hieroglyphic Mountains 

SRMA mainly for recreation settings of roaded-
Chapter 2

163

natural and semi-primitive motorized, shifting 

towards progressively more semi-primitive 

motorized and semi-primitive non-motorized 

over a 10-20 year period.

Management Actions

Substantially mitigate, or eliminate motorized 

use in the Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA (the 

area west of the Hells Canyon Wilderness and 

east of the Maughn properties) over a period of 

10 to 20 years. The focus of mitigation is to 

reduce vehicular sources of noise and dust from 

BLM's lands affecting adjoining developing 

private lands.

Phase in the OHV closures in response to 

citizens' requests, conflicts with residents and 

communities, and the need to meet air quality 

standards.

Close areas to motorized use when needed to 

comply with county and City of Peoria land 

management, and recreation use laws and 

ordinances for these areas.

Work closely with law enforcement 

authorities, with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Yavapai County, Maricopa County, 

City of Peoria, and other agencies with 

jurisdiction to:

enhance visitor safety, 

improve resource protection, and

ensure BLM‘s compliance with county, 

State, or Federal environmental laws. 

Prohibit motorized competitive races.

Designate and develop a staging/camping area 

to meet the high recreation demand, providing 

for the following: 

parking and unloading OHVs, 

overnight camping, 

event operations, 

informational signing, 

dust abatement, and

human health and safety. 

Limit to 10 acres the areas of exposed barren 

soil.

As motorized use is phased out, redesign the 

staging area for non-motorized users. The area 

could be redesigned as a trailhead for hikers and 

equestrian users, with a place to park vehicles 

and unload horses. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.2.6.

2.5.2.2.2.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative D throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-59. 

Within the Castle Hot springs Management Unit, 

allocate:

Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC and Sheep 

Mountain RNA ACEC to VRM Class I 

objectives. 

Hieroglyphics SRMA to VRM Class III 

objectives. 

Throughout the rest of the Management 

Unit, VRM classes would be allocated 

as shown on Map 2-59. 

2.5.2.2.2.7 Mineral Resource 

Management 

Management Actions

Withdraw Tule Creek ACEC from mineral 

entry, close to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and mineral material disposal.

Withdraw Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC and 

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC from mineral 

entry, close to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and mineral material disposal.

2.5.2.2.2.8 Travel Management
Chapter 2

164

Land Use Allocation

The Castle Hot Springs Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.2.1.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.2.5.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Close the fenced area within Tule Creek 

ACEC to motor vehicles.

Close all secondary, tertiary, primitive, singletrack, washes, and reclaiming vehicle routes 

within the Baldy Mountain ONA/ACEC (9,080 

acres), undisturbed by vehicle routes and human 

activities. 

Prohibit building of new vehicle routes within 

the Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC. Close all 

reclaimed vehicle routes except those needed to 

facilitate administrative or convert vehicle routes 

to non-motorized routes for public access within 

the RNA.

The Castle Hot Springs Regional Special 

Recreation Management Area would include up 

to 100 miles of non-motorized trail. 

Designate 100 to 200 miles of motorized use 

routes (single-track, ATV, and four-wheel drive) 

with one-way trips, destination trips, loops, and 

tours within the MU. 

Substantially phase out, mitigate, or 

eliminate motorized use in the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains SRMA (the area west of the Hells 

Canyon Wilderness and east of the Maughn 

properties) over a period of 10 to 20 years.

Phase in the OHV closures in response to citizen 

requests, conflicts with residents and 

communities, and the need to meet air quality 

standards. Close areas to motorized use when 

needed to comply with county and City of 

Peoria land management and dust ordinances for 

these areas.

2.5.2.2.3 Hassayampa 

Management Unit

The Hassayampa MU is located with the City of 

Wickenburg at its center. It is bounded on the 

east by Prescott National Forest and the Castle 

Hot Springs MU and on the west by the 

Harquahala MU. Its southern edge is south of 

the Vulture Mountains, and it extends north past 

Yarnell (Map 2-67).

The Hassayampa MU contains the following 

lands:

181,910 acres of BLM-administered 

lands,

130,580 acres of Arizona State land, 

50,610 acres of private land, and

460 acres of county-administered lands 

in both Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. 

2.5.2.2.3.1 Special Designations

Current Special Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with management actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section of 

this chapter.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern

Vulture Mountains ACEC (6,120 acres)
Chapter 2

165

Relevance 

The cliffs along the crest of Vulture and 

Caballeros Peaks are significant habitat features 

used by many species of raptors. They are also a 

pristine, scenic landmark. They are essential 

to maintaining the current biological diversity of 

the surrounding area. Large concentrations of 

nesting hawks and falcons use these spectacular 

cliff faces.

Importance 

The value of the cliffs for nesting raptors is 

significant for a large area. These cliffs are 

virtually the only suitable nesting cliffs for many 

miles. Nesting raptors are sensitive to 

construction-related human activities. If the 

cliffs and surrounding area are not 

protected from these activities, cliff-nesting 

raptors would disappear from much of the area.

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain the raptor nesting habitat of the cliffs 

and surrounding foraging habitat.

Management Actions

The ACEC boundary would consist of a 1-mile 

buffer of significant cliffs.

Prohibit the building of new vehicle routes.

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry; close it 

to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral 

material disposal.

Prohibit the building of new recreation sites.

Prohibit rock climbing in the ACEC.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with wildlife values, in particular 

those that affect successful raptor nesting, 

to meet the DFCs.

Acquire non-Federal lands within the ACEC as 

available.

2.5.2.2.3.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

No lands are identified for disposal within the 

Hassayampa MU.

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites are 

proposed for this MU.

2.5.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources

No allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Hassayampa MU.

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

2.5.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resources

No cultural resources would be allocated to 

public use within this MU.

2.5.2.2.3.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use allocation

Stanton SRMA

Desired Future Condition 

Provide diverse recreation experiences while 

improving unacceptable environmental 

impacts from the following recreation:

excessive and unregulated camping, 

activities of prospecting clubs, and

motorized and other recreation uses. 
Chapter 2

166

Maintain roaded-natural and semi-primitive 

motorized recreation opportunities and settings.

Management Actions

Locate and develop trailheads, staging and 

camping areas, and other facilities.

Designate a diverse network of motorized 

vehicle routes and allow a range of OHV 

experiences and challenges.

Install informational, educational, and 

interpretive kiosks and trail signs, 

where suitable, for optimum user information 

and education. Placement of interpretive signs 

along the Stanton-Octave-Yarnell road, as 

proposed under the Lower Gila North MFP, 

would be consistent with this action.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.3.7.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Land Use Allocation

Yarnell SRMA

Desired Future Condition

This site is one of the most valued in Arizona for 

successful launching of long-distance, nonpowered flights. Maintain long-term public 

access to the Yarnell hang gliding launching 

area. In addition, maintain the landing areas and 

approaches to landing areas as free of flight 

hazards as possible (Map 2-32).

Management Actions

Retain in public ownership Sections 22, 23, and 

27 and all landing zones below Yarnell Hill.

Acquire legal public access to the Yarnell hang 

gliding launching area through easements, 

rights-of-way, or land acquisition.

Acquire the Arizona State Trust Land parcel 

southwest of Yarnell containing Fool‘s Gulch 

(Section 22).

Prohibit new overhead powerlines, phone lines, 

or communication facilities within one mile of 

identified launching and landing zones.

Land Use Allocation

San Domingo SRMA

Desired Future Condition 

Manage a Sonoran Desert wash and upland 

environment suitable for an array of motorized 

and non-motorized uses. Emphasize semiprimitive motorized and some roaded-natural 

settings in recreation management.

Provide opportunities for the following 

while protecting the natural and cultural 

resources in the area:

intensive camping, 

OHV activities, 

equestrian use, 

recreation activities of prospecting 

clubs, 

event operations, and

motorized single and two-track routes 

for general motorized recreation use. 

Management Actions

Locate and develop trailheads, staging and 

camping areas, and other facilities as needed for 
Chapter 2

167

recreation activities. Limit to 10 acres the areas 

of exposed barren soil.

Prohibit motorized competitive races in the 

SRMA.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.3.7.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards,

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Land Use Allocation

The remaining lands within the Management 

Unit would be allocated as an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

2.5.2.2.3.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the Hassayampa Management Unit, 

13,200 acres would be allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

71.

Desired Future Condition 

Manage for open space and generally natural 

landscapes with primitive and semi-primitive 

non-motorized recreation settings.

Increase availability of non-motorized recreation 

opportunities.

Manage to complement the region's recreation 

opportunities.

In addition to the DFC described above, DFC 

and management actions described in the 

Wilderness Characteristics discussion under the 

Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives section of Chapter 2 also apply.

Management Actions

Close tertiary, primitive, reclaiming, single-track 

vehicle routes, and washes to motorized 

vehicles.

Withdraw from mineral entry, close to mineral 

and geothermal leasing, and mineral material 

disposal.

Allow vehicle-based camping in designated 

areas.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.3.7.

Prohibit vegetation sales.

2.5.2.2.3.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative D throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-59. 

Within the Hassayampa Management Unit, 

allocate:

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to VRM Class I 

objectives. 

Stanton and San Domingo SRMAs to 

VRM Class III objectives. 

Utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV. 

The rest of the Management Unit would 

be allocated to VRM classes as shown 

on Map 2-59. 
Chapter 2

168

2.5.2.2.3.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Withdraw the Vulture Mountains ACEC and 

lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics from mineral entry, close to 

mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral 

material disposal.

2.5.2.2.3.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Hassayampa Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.3.1.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.3.5.

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in Section

2.5.2.2.3.6.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Establish the Stanton SRMA and designate 

a diverse network of motorized vehicle routes 

and allow a range of OHV experiences and 

challenges.

Establish the San Domingo SRMA and maintain 

a Sonoran Desert wash and upland environment 

suitable for an array of motorized and nonmotorized uses.

Prohibit the building of new vehicle routes and 

close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

within the Vulture Mountains ACEC (6,120 

acres) that conflict with wildlife values, in 

particular those affecting successful raptor 

nesting, to meet the DFCs.

Close tertiary, primitive, reclaiming, single-track 

vehicle routes, and washes to motorized vehicles 

on 13,200 acres allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics as shown on Map 2-67. 

2.5.2.2.4 Harquahala 

Management Unit

Alternative D would slightly expand the 

Harquahala MU. The MU is bounded on the 

east by the Hassayampa MU and extends west to 

the Phoenix District boundary, near the town of 

Wenden. The MU's southern boundary includes

the private and State land south to Interstate 10.

The northern boundary follows the BLM's 

property line south of State Route 60, which 

goes west of Wickenburg, through Aguila and 

Wenden (Map 2-68).

The Harquahala MU would include the 

following land:

420,730 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

48,410 acres of Arizona State land, and

29,616 acres of private land.

Vision 

The Harquahala Mountains are renowned for 

their cultural history, the quality and uniqueness 

of their biotic communities, and the diversity of 

their recreation opportunities. The mountain 

ranges in this MU (Harquahala, Big Horn, and 

Belmont Mountains) and the areas between them 
Chapter 2

169

create a complex of wildlife habitats and wildlife 

movement corridors that the AGFD 

recognizes as priority management areas. The 

abundant recreation opportunities include the 

following: 

primitive experiences, 

designated hiking trails, 

a back country byway, 

backpacking, 

wildlife viewing, 

hunting, 

rock hounding, 

equestrian uses, 

cultural sightseeing, and

OHV-driving opportunities. 

The MU's scenic and natural landscapes are 

maintained while offering visitors a diverse 

array of recreation opportunities. Such 

opportunities within the MU include both 

motorized and non-motorized activities. At the 

same time, a priority is placed on maintaining, 

enhancing, and restoring natural, biological, and 

cultural resources.

2.5.2.2.4.1 Special Designations

Current Special Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with Management Actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section of 

this chapter.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Belmont-Big Horn Mountains ACEC 

(77,730 acres)

Relevance

This area encompasses diverse biological 

resources within a scenic and undisturbed 

landscape of vegetation zones within the 

Sonoran Desert. 

Importance

The area contains valuable habitat for desert 

tortoise and desert bighorn sheep.

Desired Future Condition 

The unfragmented wildlife habitat provides 

adequate forage, cover, and access to water for 

healthy wildlife populations.

Management Actions

Prohibit mineral leasing and mineral material 

sales.

Prohibit the building of new vehicle routes and 

fences.

Acquire all available State and private lands 

from willing sellers.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintaining wildlife habitat 

values to ensure achieving DFC.

Prohibit the building of new recreation sites.

Since Alternative D proposes no authorizations 

for livestock grazing, remove all livestock 

control fences except those needed to keep 

livestock from wandering onto public lands from 

adjoining grazed properties.

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC (74,940 

acres)

Relevance

The area constitutes a rare, intact, mountaintop 

vegetation community surrounded by low 

desert. The mountains contain a biologically 

diverse system, in stark contrast to the 

surrounding landscape, and support a diverse 

sky island ecosystem, with many species not 

found in the surrounding Sonoran Desert. The 

mountains are a natural area with few noticeable 

human intrusions in a primitive landscape 

setting.
Chapter 2

170

Importance

The ONA encloses and preserves a unique 

assemblage of biological resources, conserves 

significant cultural and historic sites, and 

protects a distinctive vegetation community.

The biological richness of the Harquahala 

Mountains is unique within southwest Arizona.

The Harquahala Mountains and surrounding 

bajadas provide important wildlife habitat to a 

diverse array of wildlife species. The area is an 

ecoregional conservation site with important 

biodiversity values.

The ONA contains the Harquahala Mountain 

Observatory National Register of Historic Places 

District. Besides the observatory itself, the 

historic Harquahala Peak Pack Trail, Ellison's 

Camp, and other sites are also components of the 

historic district. The area also includes many 

well-preserved prehistoric sites along with 

historic ranching and mining sites. Some 

archaeological sites may be related to the use of 

the mountain range by a regional group of the 

Western Yavapai tribe. 

The ONA will safeguard important and 

unfragmented wildlife habitat.

Desired Future Condition 

Manage the area to emphasize protecting the 

sensitive resources presented in the statements 

of relevance and importance.

Achieve long-term conservation of scenic and 

cultural values. Preserve outstanding 

opportunities for primitive recreation and 

solitude, including high-quality hiking, 

backpacking, hunting, wildlife observation, and 

cultural study prospects.

Manage the ONA to preserve outstanding 

wilderness values. Permit vehicle access on 

designated routes only. Manage these routes to 

achieve semi-primitive motorized recreation 

settings. Prohibit vehicles from going crosscountry off designated routes, and manage the 

area beyond 1/2 mile from vehicle routes to 

achieve semi-primitive non-motorized and 

primitive recreation settings.

Emphasize the following:

increasing primitive recreation 

opportunities, 

practicing backcountry skills, 

attaining isolation from other users, and

maintaining remoteness. 

Manage the ONA to restore and maintain the 

plant diversity and richness of the chaparral, 

riparian/wetland, and Sonoran Desert scrub 

vegetation communities. Conserving the 

vegetation communities and managing for 

healthy wildlife populations, are a priority in 

managing the ONA. Manage the area to achieve 

and maintain unfragmented wildlife habitat, 

which provides adequate forage, cover, and 

access to water for healthy wildlife populations.

Manage selected prehistoric and historic sites in 

the ONA for interpretive development, 

educational uses, and public visitation. For 

further information on public use of cultural 

resources, see Appendix E.

Management Actions

Conduct a route designation process, using a 

structured evaluation such as the one in 

Appendix D.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintaining wildlife habitat or 

cultural values to ensure achieving the DFC.

Close any routes that degrade natural, scenic, 

wildlife, primitive recreation opportunities, or 

cultural sites.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.4.7.

Withdraw the entire ACEC from mineral 

entry, close to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and mineral material disposal. 
Chapter 2

171

Allow primitive camping in designated areas 

only and establish standards to reduce evidence 

of human activity.

Prohibit building of new vehicle routes and 

fences.

Protect spring sources by prohibiting surface 

disturbance at them.

Acquire all available State and private lands 

from willing sellers.

Prohibit building of new recreation sites that 

conflict with bighorn sheep management, 

habitat, or movement.

Since Alternative D proposes cessation of 

grazing, remove all livestock control fences 

except those needed to keep livestock from 

wandering onto public lands from adjoining 

grazed properties.

Administrative Actions

Implement actions to find, monitor, and protect 

important cultural resources. Maintain the 

condition of the Harquahala Observatory 

historical site and its interpretive facilities.

Undertake an inventory of cultural resources for 

the following purposes:

to find and evaluate sites, 

to determine proper site uses, and

to develop and implement protective 

measures for cultural resources within 

the ACEC. 

Black Butte ONA ACEC (14,480 acres)

Relevance

The area contains the Vulture obsidian source 

used to make stone tools during prehistoric 

times.

The cliffs at the crest of Black Butte are 

significant habitat features used by many raptor 

species. The cliffs are also a pristine, scenic 

landmark. They are essential to maintaining the 

current biological diversity of the surrounding 

area.

Importance

Archaeologists consider the Vulture obsidian 

source to be one of the major sources of a 

valuable trade commodity in prehistoric 

Arizona. Obsidian (volcanic glass) was used 

widely for producing stone tools. Nodules 

of Vulture obsidian have a distinctive chemical 

composition that allows archaeologists to map 

changes in its distribution, use, and trade by 

prehistoric peoples. Vulture obsidian has been 

traced to prehistoric sites within at least a 100-

mile radius of Black Butte.

The value of the cliffs for nesting birds of prey 

is significant for a large area. Nesting raptors 

are sensitive to construction-related human 

activities. If these cliffs are not protected from 

these activities, cliff-nesting raptors would 

disappear from much of the surrounding area. 

Desired Future Condition 

Manage the ACEC to emphasize protecting the 

sensitive resources presented in the statements 

of relevance and importance.

Maintain current natural conditions and open 

space. Shift the management emphasis to 

management for wilderness character. Manage 

the area surrounding Black Butte and Jackrabbit 

Wash for primitive values. Preserve good nonmotorized recreation opportunities and 

settings. Conserve scenic volcanic landscapes.

Provide outstanding solitude opportunities.

Retain Black Butte‘s cultural significance as an 

important source and location of material for 

prehistoric tool production. Sustain important 

raptor nesting habitat in the central Black Butte 

cliffs area. Restore, enhance, and maintain 

wildlife and plant diversity and species richness 

of this Sonoran Desert vegetation community.

Conserving the vegetation communities and 

managing for healthy wildlife 

populations are priorities in managing the ONA.
Chapter 2

172

Management Actions

Management preserves and enhances the semiprimitive non-motorized setting.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.4.7. 

Do not permit vegetation sales.

Withdraw the entire ACEC from mineral 

entry, close to mineral and geothermal leasing,

and mineral material disposal.

Prohibit the building of new recreation sites.

Prohibit rock climbing in the ACEC.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintaining wildlife habitat or 

cultural values to ensure achieving DFC.

Preserve the Vulture obsidian source, permit 

scientific study, and restrict activities that 

threaten the integrity of the source.

2.5.2.2.4.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative D proposes no lands for 

disposal within the Harquahala MU.

Communication Sites

The Harquahala Peak communication site would 

be the only designated communication site 

within the Harquahala MU.

2.5.2.2.4.3 Biological Resources

No allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Harquahala 

MU. Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

2.5.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Harquahala Mountains SCRMA

Desired Future Condition

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these 

objectives and management actions. Selected 

sites are allocated to public use and interpreted 

to further public knowledge, enjoyment, and 

stewardship of cultural heritage values. For 

further information on public use of cultural 

resources, see Appendix E.

Management Actions

A combination of some or all of following 

actions and others could be implemented at 

selected sites:

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites, 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and register boxes,

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs, and

actions to stabilize, repair, and maintain 

sites in good condition. 

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours, conducted with protective 

stipulations in accordance with BLM's 

regulations and, where required, SRPs.
Chapter 2

173

Administrative Actions

Select specific sites for public use by 

considering the following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

condition of the site and feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to 

withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for 

interpretive and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would 

participate in developing sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. Historic properties for heritage 

tourism would be developed to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.5.2.2.4.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

The entire MU would be allocated as 

an Extensive Recreation Management Area.

2.5.2.2.4.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the Harquahala Management Unit, 

76,545 acres would be allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

71. 

Desired Future Condition 

In addition to the DFC described in the 

Wilderness Characteristics discussion of 

Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section, the following conditions would 

also be managed for:

to retain natural landscapes, 

to ensure high-quality primitive 

recreation experiences, 

to maintain the area's remote character, 

to preserve an array of scenic or special 

features, 

to attain a semi-primitive non-motorized 

setting, 

to maintain or enhance unfragmented 

desert tortoise, bighorn sheep, and other 

wildlife habitat, and

to maintain wildlife habitat corridors for 

genetic migration. 

Management Actions

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.4.2.2.4.7.

Withdraw from mineral entry, close to mineral 

and geothermal leasing, and mineral material 

disposal.

Prohibit vegetation sales.

Permit motorized and mechanized vehicular 

travel only on designated routes. Use a 

structured process such as the one in Appendix 

D to evaluate routes for designation to achieve 

the DFC and other management objectives.
Chapter 2

174

2.5.2.2.4.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative D throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-59. 

Within the Harquahala Management Unit, 

allocate:

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC, 

Black Butte ONA ACEC, and lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to VRM Class I 

objectives. 

Utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV.

The rest of the Management Unit 

would be allocated to VRM 

classes as shown on Map 2-59. 

2.5.2.2.4.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Close Belmont-Big Horn Mountains ACEC to 

mineral and geothermal leasing, and to mineral 

material sales.

Withdraw from mineral entry, close to mineral 

and geothermal leasing, and close to mineral 

material disposal the following areas:

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC. 

Black Butte ONA ACEC and lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. 

2.5.2.2.4.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Harquahala Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.4.1.

SCRMAs and cultural resource sites allocated to 

Public Use are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.4.4.

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in Section

2.5.2.2.4.6.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

Chapter 3.

Prohibit the building of new vehicle routes, and 

close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintaining wildlife habitat 

values to ensure achieving DFC within the 

Belmont-Big Horn Mountains ACEC 

(77,730 acres).

Close any routes that degrade natural, scenic, 

wildlife, non-motorized primitive recreation 

opportunities, or cultural sites, and close, limit, 

or suitably mitigate vehicle routes that conflict 

with maintaining wildlife habitat or cultural 

values to ensure achieving the DFC within the 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC (74,940 

acres). Also prohibit building of new vehicle 

routes and fences within the ONA ACEC.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

within the Black Butte ONA ACEC (14,480 

acres) conflicting with maintaining wildlife 

habitat or cultural values to ensure 

achieving DFC.

Permit motorized and mechanized vehicular 

travel only on designated routes on 76,545 acres 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

as shown on Map 2-71. 
Chapter 2

175

Consider development of hard-surfaced walking 

trails at selected cultural sites within the 

Harquahala Mountains SCRMA for 

interpretation, education, and visitation 

to prehistoric and historic sites.

2.5.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management 

Unit

The Harcuvar MU encompasses the eastern most 

end of the Harcuvar Mountains within the PD's 

administrative area. Most of the Harcuvar 

Mountain range is administered by BLM's Lake 

Havasu Field Office. The Harcuvar MU is 

bounded on the west and north by the PD

boundary with the Lake Havasu Field Office, 

and on the east and south by the boundary 

between BLM- and non-BLM-administered 

lands (Map 2-51).

The Harcuvar MU contains the following lands:

53,200 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

6,280 acres of Arizona State land, and

3,360 acres of private land. 

2.5.2.2.5.1 Special Designations

Alternative D proposes no Special Designations

within the Harcuvar MU.

2.5.2.2.5.2 Lands and Realty 

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative D identifies no lands for disposal or 

acquisition within this MU. 

Communication Sites

There would be no designated communication 

sites within this MU.

2.5.2.2.5.3 Biological Resources

No allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Harcuvar MU.

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

2.5.2.2.5.4 Cultural Resource 

No cultural resources would be allocated to 

public use within this MU.

2.5.2.2.5.5 Recreation 

Resources 

Land Use Allocation

The entire MU would be allocated as 

an Extensive Recreation Management Area.

2.5.2.2.5.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative D throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-59. 

Within the Harcuvar Management Unit:

The area along the Harcuvar Mountains 

would be allocated to VRM Class III. 

The rest of the Management Unit would 

be allocated to VRM Class IV. 

2.5.2.2.5.7 Mineral Resource 

Management

Alternative D proposes no mineral withdrawals 

or closures for the Harcuvar MU. 
Chapter 2

176

2.5.2.2.5.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Harcuvar Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. All vehicles 

would be limited to designated routes. 

2.5.2.2.6 Peeples Valley 

Management Unit

Peeples Valley MU is located west of the 

Yarnell area in the Date Creek Mountains (Map 

2-69). The MU has only a small proportion of 

BLM's land but offers some resource 

management opportunities. 

The Peeples Valley MU contains the following 

land:

15,500 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

207,040 acres of Arizona State land,

98,215 acres of private land.

Vision 

BLM-administered lands in the Peeples Valley 

MU are generally distributed in relatively small,

highly irregular pieces surrounded by State and 

private land. The resources on these lands are 

used by both local residents and recreation 

visitors and are considered important by those 

users. Further, regional features (mountain 

ranges, riparian areas) contain valuable wildlife 

habitat, especially for desert tortoise and bighorn 

sheep. The area also has a long mining and 

ranching history that has contributed to local 

settlement patterns and culture. For these 

reasons, Peeples Valley MU was created to 

explore long-term, coordinated management of 

the region's valuable recreation, wildlife, 

minerals, and other resources.

A regional approach to development and land 

management that preserves the quality and 

quantity of valuable recreation, wildlife, and 

other resources, while maintaining the stability 

of local economies and cultures is emphasized.

A citizen, agency, and Government working 

group exists to explore a regional approach to 

planning and managing lands that emphasizes 

sustainability of both natural resources and local 

communities. In conjunction with State, county, 

and local governments with planning and 

management jurisdiction within the MU, a 

coordinated approach to achieving commonly 

established goals and objectives is used.

2.5.2.2.6.1 Special Designations

Alternative D proposes no Special Designations

within Peeples Valley MU.

2.5.2.2.6.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

No lands are proposed for disposal within this 

MU.

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites are proposed 

for this MU.

2.5.2.2.6.3 Biological Resources

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 
Chapter 2

177

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

Land Use Allocation

Date Creek Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area.

Desired Future Condition

Maintain the wildlife/plant diversity and 

richness of the Sonoran Desert scrub vegetation 

community. Unfragmented wildlife habitat 

provides adequate forage, cover, and access to 

water for healthy wildlife populations.

Management Actions

Acquire high-quality desert tortoise habitat from 

willing sellers. 

Prohibit the building of new vehicle routes and 

fences.

Remove all livestock control fences 

because Alternative D proposes no 

authorizations for grazing. 

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintaining riparian and 

wildlife values to ensure achieving DFC.

Prohibit mineral material disposal and 

vegetation sales.

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts.

2.5.2.2.6.4 Cultural Resources

No cultural resources would be allocated to 

public use within this MU.

2.5.2.2.6.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Skull Valley Special Recreation Management 

Area (SRMA) 

Desired Future Condition (DFC)

Retain landscape character while maintaining 

motorized access to routes in Prescott National 

Forest.

Management Actions

Transfer management of the SRMA to the 

adjacent Prescott National Forest.

Land Use Allocation

The remaining lands within the Management 

Unit would be allocated as an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

2.5.2.2.6.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative D throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-59.

Within the Peeples Valley Management Unit, 

VRM classes would be allocated the same as 

shown on the referenced map.

2.5.2.2.6.7 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Action

Close Date Creek Mountains Wildlife Habitat 

Area to mineral material disposal.
Chapter 2

178

2.5.2.2.6.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Peeples Valley Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

The Date Creek Mountains WHA is discussed in 

the Biological Resources Section 2.5.2.2.6.3.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.6.5.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Prohibit the building of new vehicle routes and 

close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintaining riparian and 

wildlife values within the Date Creek Mountains 

WHA, in order to ensure achieving DFC.

Within the Skull Valley SRMA, retain landscape 

character while maintaining motorized access to 

routes in Prescott National Forest.

2.5.2.2.7 Upper Agua Fria River 

Basin Management Unit

The Upper Agua Fria River Basin MU is 

sandwiched between the Bradshaw Mountains 

and Verde Ranger Districts of Prescott National 

Forest. It stretches from Cordes Lakes in the 

south to the Town of Prescott Valley in the north 

(Map 2-70).

The Upper Agua Fria River Basin MU contains 

the following land:

21,520 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

36,990 acres of Arizona State land, and

39,290 acres of private land. 

2.5.2.2.7.1 Special Designations

Nomination to National Recreation Trail 

System

Black Canyon Trail

Desired Future Condition

An ever-increasing urban population will seek 

out the trail for various recreation benefits and 

outcomes. Promote the preservation of the 

scenery, public access to the trail, safe travel on 

the trail, appreciation and enjoyment of the open 

space, and historic resources of the Black 

Canyon corridor. A National Recreation Trail 

should be established primarily within urban 

areas, secondarily, within scenic areas, and 

along historic travel routes of the areas.

Management Actions

Evaluate the Black Canyon Trail for inclusion 

into the National Recreation Trail System, as 

described in the National Trails System Act of 

2002 (P.L.90-543).

Issue a right-of-way agreement for the trail and 

facilities to preserve their access and long-term 

character.

Acquire easements, rights-of-way, or both on 

non-Federal lands where the trail or facilities 

must cross or be built.

Any future land tenure action will recognize the 

trail and facilities and will retain a 1⁄4-mile 

corridor (1/8 mile on each side) along the trail 

and any ancillary facility, as well as public 

access to them by easement, right-of-way, deed 

restriction, or other suitable means.
Chapter 2

179

2.5.2.2.7.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

There would be no lands proposed for disposal.

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites have been 

proposed for this MU.

2.5.2.2.7.3 Biological Resources

Land Use Allocation

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain and enhance existing wildlife habitat 

and ensure unimpeded wildlife movement 

between BLM-managed Federal lands and 

adjacent national forest.

Management Actions

Prohibit building of new vehicle routes and 

fences on the remaining public lands.

Alternative D proposes making allotments 

unavailable for grazing and removing all 

livestock control fences, except those needed to 

keep livestock from wandering onto public lands 

from adjoining grazed properties.

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

that conflict with maintenance of riparian and 

wildlife values to ensure achieving DFC.

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts.

2.5.2.2.7.4 Cultural Resources

No cultural resources would be allocated to 

public use within this MU.

2.5.2.2.7.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

North Black Canyon Trail SRMA 

Desired Future Condition

Complete the Black Canyon Trail from Highway 

69 north and east to connect with trails in 

Prescott National Forest. Design the trail to 

provide a non-motorized experience along or 

near the historic sheep driveway. The trail and 

any ancillary facilities will generally lie along 

the corridor established by secretarial order in 

1969. Determine exact locations of the trail or 

any ancillary facilities in conjunction with the 

Yavapai County Trails Committee and other 

interested citizens.

Evaluate the trail for inclusion into the National 

Recreation Trail System in order to provide for 

the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of 

an expanding urban population and in order to 

promote the preservation of, public access to, 

travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of 

the open-air, outdoor areas and historic 

resources of the Black Canyon corridor. A 

National Recreation Trail should be 

established primarily, near urban 

areas, secondarily, within scenic areas and along 

historic travel routes of the area.

Management Actions

Issue a right-of-way agreement for the trail and 

facilities to preserve their access and long-term 

character.

Acquire easements, rights-of-way, or both on 

non-Federal lands where the trail or facilities 

must cross or be built.
Chapter 2

180

Any future land tenure action will recognize the 

trail and facilities and will retain a 1⁄4-mile 

corridor (1/8 mile on each side) along the trail 

and any ancillary facility, as well as public 

access to them by easement, right-of-way, deed 

restriction, or other suitable means.

Evaluate the Black Canyon Trail for inclusion 

into the National Recreation Trail System, as 

described in the National Trails System Act of 

2002 (P.L.90-543).

Administrative Actions

Establish a citizen focus group to help with trail 

and facility sites, designs, and management.

With citizens' inputs, write a long-term SRMA 

management plan.

Land Use Allocation

The remaining lands within the Management 

Unit would be allocated as an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

2.5.2.2.7.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative D throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-59. The 

entire Upper Agua Fria River Basin

Management Unit would be allocated as VRM 

Class III.

2.5.2.2.7.7 Mineral Resource 

Management

Alternative D proposes no mineral withdrawals 

or closures within this MU.

2.5.2.2.7.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Upper Agua Fria River Basin Management 

Unit would be allocated as a limited use area, 

with motorized and mechanized vehicle 

uses limited to designated routes (Map 2-16).

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

WHAs are discussed in the Biological 

Resources Section 2.5.2.2.7.3.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.7.5.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Establish the North Black Canyon Trail SRMA.

Determine exact locations of the trail or any 

ancillary facilities in conjunction with the 

Yavapai County Trails Committee and other 

interested citizens. Travel Management related 

decisions within the SRMA include:

Issue a right-of-way agreement for the 

trail and facilities to preserve their 

access and long-term character. 

Acquire easements, rights-of-way, or 

both on non-Federal lands where the 

trail or facilities must cross or be built. 

Evaluate the Black Canyon Trail for 

inclusion into the National Recreation 

Trail System, as described in the 

National Trails System Act of 

2002 (P.L.90-543). 

Prohibit building of new vehicle routes on public 

lands, and close, limit, or suitably mitigate 
Chapter 2

181

vehicle routes that conflict with maintenance of 

riparian and wildlife values within the Upper 

Agua Fria River Basin Habitat Corridor WHA,

in order to achieve DFC.

2.6 Alternative E 

(Proposed Action)

Alternative E is the BLM's proposed 

management plan. It is designed to respond to 

each of the issues and management concerns 

recognized during the planning process in the 

most comprehensive manner possible. BLM has 

determined that the management actions 

presented under Alternative E would protect the 

resource values in the national monument and 

provide an optimal balance between authorized 

resource use and the protection and 

sustainability of sensitive resources in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala area. The following 

discussion, along with the Desired Future 

Conditions (DFCs), land use allocations, and 

management actions described in the 

Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives section of this chapter, comprise the 

total proposed Alternative E.

2.6.1 Agua Fria 

National Monument

Introduction 

Alternative E for the Agua Fria National 

Monument RMP is the BLM's proposed 

management plan. This plan would protect the 

resources described in the proclamation 

(Appendix A), while providing opportunities for 

public access, education, and appreciation of 

these values. The following section describes 

the elements of the proposed management plan

for each resource, including DFC and relevant 

management actions.

2.6.1.1 Special Designations

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility 

Analysis of eligibility of tributary streams to the 

Agua Fria River within the Agua Fria National 

Monument determined that the streams shown 

on Map 2-27 are eligible for consideration as

potential additions to the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. From north to south, 

these eight streams include Ash Creek/Little Ash 

Creek, Sycamore Creek, Indian Creek, Silver 

Creek, Bishop Creek, Tank Creek, Lousy 

Canyon/Creek and Larry Creek. 

Following the guidance in BLM Manual 8351, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers—Policy and Program 

Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and 

Management, staff evaluated the identified 

stream segments for free-flowing character and 

the presence of at least one ―outstandingly 

remarkable‖ value.

―Free-flowing‖ is defined by Section 16(b) of 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as ―existing in 

natural condition without impoundment, 

diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other 

modification of the waterway.‖ Streams with 

intermittent flows may be eligible. According to 

BLM Manual 8351.31B, the existence of minor 

dams or diversion structures shall not by 

themselves render a river ineligible. The 

eligible streams in the monument are freeflowing. A small, low concrete dam exists in 

Silver Creek. It creates a pool from which a 

pipeline diverts water to Horseshoe Ranch, 

which claims a water right dating to 1875. 

Nevertheless, water can flow around this 

structure, and Silver Creek is determined to be 

free-flowing. 

The eligible streams possess one or more 

outstandingly remarkable values. Outstandingly 

remarkable scenic values are characterized by 

notable or exemplary visual features of 

landforms, water, color, and related factors. 

Outstandingly remarkable values for fish and 

wildlife are characterized by the presence of 

exceptionally high quality habitat, especially for 

native fish and populations of state sensitive, 
Chapter 2

182

federally listed, or candidate threatened and 

endangered species. Outstandingly remarkable 

cultural values are characterized by rare or 

unusual prehistoric sites, or sites that may have 

national or regional importance for interpreting 

prehistory.

The Audubon Society has designated the Agua 

Fria River and these eight tributaries as an 

Important Bird Area (IBA). IBA‘s are sites that 

provide essential habitat for species of 

conservation concern, which may include 

breeding, wintering, or migrating birds. The 

yellow-billed cuckoo, a candidate species, is 

among the bird species in the Agua Fria IBA.

Ash Creek is the only perennial stream, even 

during drought conditions. Ash Creek and Little 

Ash Creek have outstandingly remarkable 

wildlife values, represented by riparian 

vegetation and the Agua Fria IBA. Sycamore 

Creek has similar values. 

Indian Creek has outstanding wildlife values, 

represented by the Agua Fria IBA. The segment 

between Red Rock Gulch and the national forest 

boundary is designated critical habitat for 

endangered Gila chub, a native fish species. 

Silver Creek has outstanding wildlife values, 

including the Agua Fria IBA and critical habitat 

for endangered Gila chub. It is also 

characterized by outstanding scenic values of 

Silver Creek Canyon, as well as outstanding 

cultural values of Pueblo la Plata and associated 

prehistoric sites within the Perry Mesa National 

Register District.

Bishop Creek is characterized by outstanding 

wildlife values associated with the Agua Fria 

IBA. It also has outstanding scenic values of 

Baby Canyon, as well as outstanding cultural 

values of Baby Canyon Pueblo, widespread 

petroglyph sites, and other sites within the Perry 

Mesa District.

Tank Creek has outstanding wildlife values 

within the Agua Fria IBA and outstanding scenic 

values of Perry Tank Canyon. Its outstanding 

cultural values include Pueblo Pato, widespread 

rock art, and other prehistoric sites within the 

Perry Mesa District.

Lousy Creek is part of the Agua Fria IBA and its 

outstanding wildlife values include critical 

habitat for endangered Gila chub. It is also an 

introduction site for other species of native fish. 

Lousy Creek has outstanding scenic and cultural 

values associated with Lousy Canyon. 

Larry Creek has outstanding wildlife values, as 

part of the Agua Fria IBA, and it is an 

introduction site for native fish species. A 

tributary is critical habitat for endangered Gila 

chub. Larry Canyon also has outstanding scenic 

values. 

In addition to evaluations of free-flowing 

condition and outstandingly remarkable values, 

eligibility determinations involve tentative 

classifications of stream segments as wild, 

scenic, or recreational areas. Classification 

reflects the type and degree of human 

developments associated with the river and 

adjacent lands as they exist at the time of 

evaluation. Wild river areas are defined as free 

of impoundments and generally inaccessible 

except by trail, with shorelines essentially 

primitive and undeveloped. Scenic river areas 

have similar qualities but may be accessible in 

places by roads. Recreational river areas 

typically are more developed than are the areas 

within the monument. 

As shown on Map 2-72, the following tentative 

classifications are assigned to the Agua Fria 

tributaries. The numbers of miles indicate the 

length of stream segments, which are limited to 

areas on BLM-administed lands within the 

monument. 

Ash Creek: scenic, 1.1 miles along Ash 

Creek and 2.7 miles along Little Ash 

Creek.

Sycamore Creek: scenic, 3.3 miles.

Indian Creek: scenic, 5.6 miles.

Silver Creek: scenic, 4.9 miles.

Bishop Creek: wild, 5.2 miles, south of 

Bloody Basin Road; scenic, 1.7 miles 
Chapter 2

183

from Bloody Basin Road to the national 

forest boundary.

Tank Creek: wild, 3.4 miles.

Lousy Creek: wild, 5.0 miles.

Larry Creek and tributaries: wild, 3.4 

miles.

The next step before making recommendations 

to Congress concerning designation of particular 

water courses is a suitability analysis. 

Suitability determinations involve a more 

detailed, comprehensive analysis of a wider 

range of factors, based on the BLM Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Manual 8351. Suitability 

determinations will be conducted in the future as 

funding becomes available. Congress makes the 

final decisions regarding river designations and 

classification of streams as wild, scenic, or 

recreational. Regardless of whether these 

streams are ultimately determined as suitable for 

Wild and Scenic River designation, the BLM 

will continue to preserve their free-flowing 

condition and protect their outstandingly 

remarkable scenic, cultural, and fish and wildlife 

values in accordance with the Monument 

Proclamation and the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. 

Desired Future Condition

Tributary streams of the Agua Fria River, which 

are determined eligible for study as potential 

additions to the national Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, are maintained in free-flowing 

condition and managed to protect their 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, wildlife, and 

cultural resource values.

Management Actions

In accordance with BLM Manual 8351, when a 

river segment is determined eligible and given a 

tentative classification, its identified 

outstandingly remarkable values shall be 

afforded adequate protection, subject to valid 

existing rights, until the eligibility determination 

is superceded (i.e., the segment is determined 

not suitable for designation, or Congress makes 

a decision regarding designation). Authorized 

uses shall not be allowed to adversely affect 

either eligibility or the tentative classification, 

i.e., actions that would change a classification 

from wild to scenic). 

If one or more stream segments were eventually 

found non-suitable for designation, those 

streams would be managed according to the 

Monument Proclamation and the allocated 

recreation settings and other resource 

allocations. The monument values that would 

be protected include the outstanding biological 

and cultural resource values that define the 

eligibility of these streams for consideration 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Management actions shall apply to areas within 

1⁄4 mile on either side of each eligible stream. 

Maintain the free-flowing characteristics of 

eligible streams by prohibiting new stream 

impoundments, diversions, channelizations, or 

rip-rapping to the extent the BLM is authorized 

under law. 

Implement actions to monitor and protect 

outstanding wildlife habitat, native fish species, 

other sensitive species, and cultural resources. 

Relevant management actions are described in 

Sections 2.6.1.3, 2.6.1.8, 2.7.1.1, 2.7.1.4, 

2.7.1.5, 2.7.2.4, and 2.7.2.5.

Implement actions to protect outstanding scenic 

qualities in accordance with visual resource 

management objectives. Management actions 

are described in Sections 2.6.1.7, 2.7.1.8, and 

2.7.2.8.

Implement proposed route closures, shown on 

Map 2-76, to help protect outstandingly 

remarkable values along Ash, Sycamore, Silver, 

Bishop, and Lousy Creeks. Prohibit new vehicle 

routes in areas managed as wild segments.

Continue to work with partners, such as the 

Audubon Society and the Arizona Site Stewards, 

to monitor, inventory, and protect outstandingly 

remarkable river values. 
Chapter 2

184

Administrative Actions

The BLM will evaluate the suitability of each 

eligible river segment for inclusion in the 

national Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The 

public will have opportunities to comment on 

the proposed suitability determinations. 

Suitability evaluations will be completed within 

four years after the Record of Decision for the 

RMP is signed. 

2.6.1.2 Lands and Realty

Land Use Allocation

Utility and Transportation Corridors

Desired Future Condition

To continue to maintain utility and 

transportation connectivity along an important 

north-south route from the greater Phoenix area 

to suppliers to the north, while protecting the 

resources described in the National Monument 

Proclamation (Appendix A).

Management Actions

Narrow the existing utility corridor (designated 

by the Phoenix RMP [BLM 1988a] in the Black 

Canyon RCA), so that the the utility corridor's 

eastern boundary follows the easternmost 

boundaries of any existing rights-of-way that are 

within the corridor identified in the Phoenix 

RMP. This corridor is also modified on the west 

side, and is further described in the Lands and 

Realty discussion under the Black Canyon 

Management Unit section of Alternative E.

2.6.1.3 Biological Resources

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

Land Use Allocations

Pronghorn Fawning Habitat Wildlife Habitat 

Area (16,810 acres) Map 2-73. 

Pronghorn Movement Corridor Wildlife Habitat 

Area (22,520 acres) Map 2-73. 

Desired Future Condition

Manage habitat to avoid fragmentation and 

provide conditions that promote natural 

movement and fawning behavior of pronghorn.

Restore and maintain habitat of suitable quality 

and quantity to promote long-term sustainability 

of a viable pronghorn population in the national 

monument.

Management Actions

To ensure achievement of DFC, limit or suitably 

mitigate vehicle routes that:

cross known pronghorn movement 

corridors and

have a type and volume of use that 

modifies pronghorn behavior in ways 

that fragment their habitat or 

adversely affect fawning.

Implement seasonal restrictions or closures 

when vehicle use degrades habitat values.

Apply prescribed fire and fuels management 

projects to improve habitat for pronghorn 

fawning and movement

Fence construction and maintenance will follow 

guidance provided in BLM's Handbook for 

Fencing H-1741.

Limit or suitably mitigate new recreation site 

developments in pronghorn movement 

corridors to avoid disturbing pronghorn 

movement.
Chapter 2

185

Close pronghorn fawning areas to Special 

Recreation Permit activities between April 1 and 

June 1 annually.

Maintenance of wildlife habitat will be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts.

Additional management guidance is described in 

the Biological Resources discussion of the 

Management Common to Both Planning Areas 

and the Biological Resources discussion 

of Management Common to Agua Fria National 

Monument sections of Chapter 2.

Administrative Actions

Conduct site-specific studies to determine 

pronghorn fawning habitat quality and 

potential. Base implementation actions on the 

data acquired.

Following guidance in BLM's Handbook H1741, construction and modification of fences to 

meet fence standards will include coordination 

with livestock operators, interested conservation 

organizations, and other Federal, State, or local 

governments as appropriate.

2.6.1.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocations

SCRMAs are shown on Map 2-73. 

Desired Future Condition

Cultural resources are being used to enhance 

scientific and public knowledge and 

understanding of the monument region during 

prehistoric and historic periods, while at the 

same time they are being preserved for future 

generations as well. Partnerships and volunteers 

are utilized to support these objectives and 

management actions. Selected sites are 

allocated to public use and interpreted to further 

public knowledge, enjoyment, and stewardship 

of cultural heritage values. 

Management Actions

Sites described below, allocated to High and 

Moderate public use would be developed 

consistent with discussion in Section 2.7.1.5, 

Cultural Resources, of the Management 

Common to Agua Fria National Monument.

Interpretive development would be focused on 

the sites listed below, leaving the majority of the 

areas within each SCRMAs undeveloped.

High Use SCRMA (2,056 acres) 

Sites allocated to public use within this SCRMA 

are:

Pueblo la Plata and Fort Silver (Pueblo 

la Plata complex) north of Bloody Basin 

Road on Perry Mesa.

Historic Teskey homestead near the 

Agua Fria River. 

Moderate Use SCRMA (8,100 acres)

Sites allocated to public use within this SCRMA 

are:

Baby Canyon Pueblo and Pueblo Pato 

on Perry Mesa.

Badger Springs rock art and the Arrastre 

Creek site on Black Mesa. 

Prehistoric sites on the south rim of 

Black Mesa. 

Rollie Site (AZ N:16:231(ASM)) near 

Sunset Point on Black Mesa.

Low Use area (60,750 acres BLM) 

All remaining areas outside the two 

SCRMAs would be excluded from on-theground interpretive development or commercial 

tours. No sites would be allocated to public use 

in these areas.

2.6.1.5 Recreation Resources

Alternative E would allocate the entire national 

monument to a Special Recreation Management 

Area with three Recreation Management Zones 
Chapter 2

186

within it. These zones include a Back Country 

RMZ of 57,650 acres to manage and maintain 

the natural landscape character (Map 2-74). A 

Passage RMZ of 1,350 acres would be allocated 

100 feet from the centerline of designated routes 

that pass through or enter into the Back Country 

RMZ, to manage vehicle-based visitation. The 

remainder of the monument would be allocated 

as a Front Country RMZ of 11,900 acres, where 

management would focus more on recreation 

and interpretive opportunities. General 

descriptions of the Front Country, Back 

Country, and Passage RMZs, including 

DFCs common to all Alternatives, appear in 

the Management Common to Agua Fria 

National Monument section of Chapter 2 under 

the discussion of Recreation and Public Access.

Appendix S, Benefits-Based Recreation, 

contains detailed descriptions of recreation 

settings in each RMZ. In accordance with BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook, Appendix C, this 

information addresses management objectives 

for the specific recreation opportunities to be 

produced and the outcomes to be attained 

(activities, experiences, and benefits). Also 

included are prescriptions for facilitating the 

attainment of beneficial outcomes and an 

activity planning framework that addresses 

management, marketing, and monitoring actions 

needed to achieve management objectives and 

setting prescriptions. 

Land Use Allocation

Front Country Recreation Management Zone 

(11,900 acres). 

Desired Future Condition

The DFC for the Front Country RMZ is 

described in Section 2.7.2.7 of the Management 

Common to Agua Fria National 

Monument section of this chapter. In addition, 

the Front Country RMZ would also:

recognize that people are part of the 

ecosystem, 

allow visitors to responsibly interact 

with the resources, 

offer people with physical limitations a 

way to enjoy the monument while still 

maintaining the integrity of the 

resources and landscape characteristics, 

and

give the public sustainable 

recreation/tourism opportunities while 

protecting the integrity of the 

monument's cultural sites and other 

resources. 

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.6.1.7.

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) and 

Concessions:

Require groups of 25 or more to obtain 

an SRP. 

Rather than defining a maximum 

allowable number of SRPs, the BLM 

will review permit applications on a 

case-by-case basis taking into account

the following considerations. Permit 

numbers will be determined and may be 

increased or decreased through adaptive 

management, which is described in 

Section 2.7.2.7.

Prohibit competitive motorized or 

mechanized races, and consider other 

competitive events on a case-by-case 

basis as long as they do not conflict with 

achievement of all resource DFCs for 

the location. 

Issue SRPs for vending operations for a 

permitted SRP activity or event in the 

monument or recreation site.

Vending for permitted activities or

events might be included with the SRP 

for the permitted activity or event if the 

permittee is responsible for the vending 

operations. If not, a separate SRP 

for vending would be required.

Consider vending if the service or goods 

for sale directly enhance the recreation 

experience and cannot be adequately 

provided by the closest local 
Chapter 2

187

community. BLM would not authorize 

permanent structures. 

Issue recreation concession leases 

to enhance visitor use, visitor services, 

and visitor safety and enjoyment if 

leases are consistent with resource DFCs 

and monument objectives. Consider 

concessions on a case-by-case basis and 

base determinations on consistency with 

management objectives and a clearly, 

demonstrated need. 

Close pronghorn fawning areas to SRP 

activities between April 1 and June 1 

annually. 

Dispersed Camping:

Require a free permit for camping. 

Camping permits could be limited in 

number if resource damage occurs 

that conflicts with achieving resource 

DFCs or threatens resources protected 

by the proclamation, or if health and 

safety issues emerge. If damage 

continues, more limitations might be 

required, including temporary or 

permanent area closures, limiting 

camping to designated sites, or seasonal 

limitations or closures. 

Allow dispersed camping only in 

existing disturbed areas or at existing 

campsites, accessed by designated 

routes. 

Prohibit camping within a 200-feet 

radius (70 adult paces) of developed 

facilities, such as trails, kiosks, entrance 

signs, signed archeological sites, 

parking areas, and riparian and water 

source areas. 

Make management 

adjustments that respond to recent 

ecological research and data results (for 

example, using data from outdoor 

recreation research on human effects to 

natural and biological resources). 

Camping would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile from water sources "...containing 

water in such a place that wildlife or 

domestic stock will be denied access to 

the only reasonably available water 

(Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping). 

The authorized officer may designate or 

close camping areas as needed to 

maintain, protect, or enhance resources. 

Developed Campgrounds:

None. 

Campfires:

Prohibit campfires within 1/4 mile 

of intensive and moderate public 

use archaeological sites. 

Prohibit campfires within a 200-feet 

radius of developed facilities, such as 

trails, kiosks, entrance signs, parking 

areas, archaeological sites including 

petroglyphs (rock art) sites, and riparian 

and water source areas. 

Limit firewood collection to campfire 

use only. Allow collection of dead, 

down, and detached material for 

campfire firewood. Monitor vegetation 

use and disturbance and temporarily or 

permanently suspend such use to 

prevent resource damage. 

Recreational Target Shooting: 

Prohibit recreational target shooting 

throughout the monument. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use

Discussion of trail development

can be found in Travel 

Management Section 2.6.1.9. 

Badger Springs Area Management Actions:

Enhance the entrance to Badger Springs, 

which may include rerouting, 

reclaiming, and recontouring routes. 

Enhance the Badger Springs Wash Trail 

complex, which might include 

redesigning, rerouting, reclaiming, and 
Chapter 2

188

recontouring the parking area, trailhead, 

and trails. 

At or near the trailhead provide visitor 

amenities, which may include rest and 

shade areas, restrooms, equestrian 

parking and supports, and interpretive 

and directional signs. 

Close to livestock grazing the area 

encompassing recreation facilities at the 

Badger Springs Wash trailhead. 

Consider pronghorn movement and 

habitat needs in any development in the 

Badger Springs area. 

Provide for route maintenance to reduce 

erosion and maintain routes to provide 

for public safety. 

Cordes Lakes Area Management Actions:

Fence the Cordes Lakes Area (T. 11 N, 

R. 3 E., Section 20) near the Agua Fria 

River to prevent motorized access and 

provide for safe vehicle parking. 

Provide access points for walk-in and 

universal access. 

Provide visitor amenities, which may 

include picnic tables, rest areas, shade 

facilities, directional signs, and 

interpretive and visitor information 

opportunities. 

Bloody Basin Road Entrance (just beyond the 

existing kiosk)

Reclaim and landscape west entrance on 

the southeast side for desert vegetation. 

Land Use Allocation

Back Country Recreation Management Zone 

(57,650 acres). 

Desired Future Condition

The DFC for the Back Country RMZ is 

described in Section 2.7.2.7 of the Management 

Common to Agua Fria National 

Monument section of Chapter 2.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.6.1.7.

Maintain river crossings at Kelton Ranch, EZ 

Ranch, Horseshoe Ranch, and Cross Y Ranch.

SRPs and Concessions:

Require an SRP for groups of 25 or 

more. 

Rather than defining a maximum 

allowable number of SRPs, the BLM 

will review permit applications on a 

case-by-case basis taking into account 

the following considerations. Permit 

numbers will be determined and may be 

increased or decreased through adaptive 

management, which is described in 

Section 2.7.2.7.

Authorize no competitive motorized or 

mechanized races. Consider other 

competitive events on a case-by-case 

basis on how they conform to the 

proclamation of the monument. 

Issue SRPs for vending operations if for 

permitted events on the monument or 

recreation site. Include with the SRP 

vending for permitted events if the 

permittee is responsible for the vending 

operations. If not, require a separate 

SRP for vending. Consider vending at 

recreation sites if the service or goods 

for sale directly enhances the recreation 

experience and cannot be adequately 

provided by the closest local 

community. Prohibit permanent 

structures. 

Issue recreation concession leases 

to enhance visitor use, visitor services, 

and visitor safety and enjoyment, if 

these leases conform to monument 

values and objectives. Consider 

concessions on a case-by-case basis and 

base determinations on consistency with 

management objectives and a clearly, 

demonstrated need. 
Chapter 2

189

Close pronghorn fawning areas to SRP 

activities between April 1 and June 1 

annually. 

Dispersed Camping:

Allow dispersed tent camping with free 

permits. Camping permits could be 

limited in number if resource damage 

occurs that conflicts with achieving 

resource DFCs or threatens resources 

protected by proclamation, or if health 

and safety issues emerge. If damage 

continues, more limitations might be 

required, including temporary or 

permanent area closures, limiting 

camping to designated sites, or seasonal 

limitations or closures. 

Prohibit motorized campers/units in the 

back country since vehicles are not 

allowed off-road. 

Make management 

adjustments that respond to recent 

research and data results. 

Camping would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile from water sources "...containing 

water in such a place that wildlife or 

domestic stock will be denied access to 

the only reasonably available water 

(Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping).

The authorized officer may designate or 

close camping areas as needed to 

maintain, protect, or enhance resources. 

Developed Campgrounds:

None. 

Campfires:

Limit firewood collection to campfire 

use only. Allow collection of dead, 

down, and detached material for 

campfire firewood. Monitor vegetation 

use and disturbance and temporarily or 

permanently suspend use to prevent 

resource damage. 

Prohibit campfires within a 200-feet 

radius of petroglyphs (rock art), 

archaeological sites such as pueblos, and 

riparian and water sources. 

Recreational Target Shooting: 

Prohibit recreational target shooting 

throughout the monument. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in the 

Travel Management

Section 2.6.1.9.

Land Use Allocation

Passage Recreation Management Zone (1,350 

acres)

Desired Future Condition 

This Passage RMZ consists of a 200-feet-wide 

corridor (100 feet on each side of centerline) 

along all designated vehicle routes passing 

through the Back Country RMZ. The DFC for 

the Passage RMZ is described 

in Section 2.7.2.7 of the Management Common 

to Agua Fria National Monument section of 

Chapter 2.

Management Actions

VRM Allocations to achieve the Desired Future 

Conditions of this Recreation Management Zone 

are described in Section 2.6.1.7.

SRP and Concessions:

Require a SRP for groups of 25 or more. 

Rather than defining a maximum 

allowable number of SRPs, the BLM 

will review permit applications on a 

case-by-case basis taking into account 

the following considerations. Permit 

numbers will be determined and may be 

increased or decreased through adaptive 
Chapter 2

190

management, which is described in 

Section 2.7.2.7.

Authorize no competitive motorized or 

mechanized races. Consider other 

competitive events on a case-by-case 

basis depending on how they conform to 

monument values. 

Issue SRPs for vending operations if for 

a permitted event on the monument or 

recreation site. Include vending for 

permitted events with the SRP for the 

permitted event if the permittee is 

responsible for the vending operations.

If not, require a separate SRP for the 

vending. Consider vending at recreation 

sites if the service or goods for sale 

directly enhance the recreation 

experience and cannot be adequately 

provided by the closest local 

community. Prohibit permanent 

structures. 

Enter into recreation concession leases 

to enhance visitor use, visitor services, 

and visitor safety and enjoyment, if 

these leases conform to monument 

values and objectives. Consider 

concessions on a case-by-case basis and 

base determinations on consistency 

with management objectives and a 

clearly, demonstrated need. 

Close pronghorn fawning areas to SRP 

activities between April 1 and June 1 

annually. 

Dispersed Camping:

Allow dispersed camping with a free 

permit. Camping permits could 

be limited in number if resource damage 

occurs that conflicts with achieving 

resource DFCs or threatens resources 

protected by proclamation, or if health 

and safety issues emerge. If damage 

continues, more limitations might be 

required, including temporary or 

permanent area closures, limiting 

camping to designated sites, or seasonal 

limitations or closures. 

Allow dispersed camping only in 

existing disturbed areas or in existing 

campsites, accessed by designated 

routes. 

Prohibit camping within a 200-feet 

radius (70 adult paces) of developed 

facilities, such as trails, kiosks, entrance 

signs, signed archeological sites, 

parking areas, and riparian and water 

sources. 

Camping would be prohibited within 1⁄4 

mile from water sources "...containing 

water in such a place that wildlife or 

domestic stock will be denied access to 

the only reasonably available water 

(Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping). 

Issue with each free permit, monumentspecific Leave No Trace/Tread Lightly 

information to minimize impacts to 

resources and prevent pollution to desert 

water resources. 

Make management 

adjustments that respond to recent 

research and data results. 

The authorized officer may designate 

and close camping areas, as needed, to 

maintain, protect, or enhance resources. 

Developed Campgrounds:

None. 

Campfires:

Allow campfires in existing disturbed 

areas. 

Prohibit campfires within 1/4 mile 

of archaeological sites managed 

for High or Moderate public use. 

Prohibit campfires within a 200-feet 

radius of developed facilities, such as 

trails, kiosks, entrance signs, parking 

areas, archaeological--including rock 

art--sites, and riparian and water 

sources. 

Limit firewood collection to campfire 

use only. Allow collection of dead, 

down, and detached material for 

campfire firewood. Monitor vegetation 

use and disturbance and temporarily or 
Chapter 2

191

permanently suspend this use to prevent 

resource damage. 

Recreational Target Shooting:

Prohibit recreational target shooting 

throughout the Monument. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Recreation Use

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in the 

Travel Management

Section 2.6.1.9.

Administrative Actions

With free permits for camping within the 

monument issue specific Leave No Trace/Tread 

Lightly information to minimize impacts to the 

resources and prevent pollution to desert water 

resources. 

Monitor dispersed campsites and 

establishes limits of acceptable change. Base 

site carrying capacities on the limits of 

acceptable change. 

Adopt measures to increase visitor 

responsibility for campfire etiquette and to 

reduce proliferation of campfire rings.

2.6.1.6 Wilderness

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the national monument, 20,900 acres 

would be allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics as shown on Map 2-74. 

Desired Future Condition

In addition to the DFC and management actions 

in the Wilderness Characteristics discussion of 

the Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter, the following DFC 

also applies:

Lands within the monument allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics contain 

outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

naturalness. Maintain these characteristics and 

provide opportunities for unconfined primitive 

recreation, adventure, and discovery. Important 

wildlife populations and habitat are also within 

these lands and they are recognized as an 

important component of the naturalness and will 

be actively managed.

Management Actions

Evaluate non-motorized trails between Bull 

Tank and Baby Canyon, between Badger 

Springs/Agua Fria confluence and Pueblo Pato, 

and in other areas if needed, to enhance resource 

protection by providing planned and accessible 

paths between major access points and 

interpretive sites. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.1.7.

Authorize no new rights-of-way.

2.6.1.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative E throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-75. 

Within the Agua Fria National Monument, 

allocate:

lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics (20,900 acres) to Class II 

objectives, 

remaining Back Country Recreation 

Management Zone and the Passage 

RMZ to Class II objectives (20,900 

acres), 

the Front Country RMZ to VRM Class 

III (11,900 acres), and
Chapter 2

192

the utility corridor (which is within the 

Front Country RMZ) would be 

allocated to VRM Class III. 

Desired Future Condition

Throughout the national monument, regardless 

of VRM class, the objective is to minimize the 

visual impacts of authorized activities. To the 

extent possible, keep night skies free of light 

pollution.

Administrative Actions

Cooperate with surrounding communities 

and national, State, regional, and local entities to 

minimize the impacts of lighting.

Include clear nights from light standards 

in new permits/authorizations and in renewing 

permits/authorizations within all the 

viewsheds affecting the monument.

2.6.1.8 Rangeland Management

Land Use Allocations

BLM would continue to administer the current 

11 grazing authorizations on 10 

allotments as shown on Map 2-5.

Desired Future Condition

Watersheds are in properly functioning 

condition, including their upland, riparian, and 

aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions 

support infiltration, storage, and release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform.

Ecological processes are maintained to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities.

Management Actions

Limit livestock grazing in riparian areas to the 

winter season (November 1 to March 1).

Inventory and/or monitoring studies will be used 

to determine if adjustments to permitted use 

levels, terms and conditions and management 

practices are necessary in order to meet and/or 

make significant progress towards meeting the 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

other Land Use Plan Objectives.

Fence construction and maintenance will follow 

guidance provided in BLM's handbook on 

Fencing No. 1741-1.

When lands are devoted to a public purpose that 

precludes livestock grazing, adjust allotment 

boundaries to allow for that use.

Remove the immediate area surrounding Badger 

Springs Wash from the Cordes allotment to 

provide for developing a visitor parking area, 

information kiosk, campground, and 

infrastructure.

2.6.1.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The entire monument is allocated as Limited to 

Designated routes (Map 2-16).

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. Cross-country motorized travel is 

prohibited except in the case of an emergency or 

for approved administrative purposes. Although 

OHVs are manufactured to travel off regularly 

maintained roads or travel cross-country where 

no roads exist, OHVs throughout his planning 

area are restricted to designated roads. A back 

country zone is defined as: Areas with 

undeveloped, primitive, and self-directed visitor 

experiences without provisions for motorized or 

mechanized access, except for designated routes. 

On the Bloody Basin Road provide a vehicle 

route accessible by high-clearance vehicles 

where views of the monument and interpretation 

of monument resources create a better 

understanding of the resources being protected.

Along the central monument travel route create a 

comprehensive visitor experience that is both 
Chapter 2

193

sensitive to monument resources and provides a 

high-quality visitor experience which would: 

Maintain at BLM Maintenance Intensity 

standard of Level 3  ̳Medium‘ (BLM 

Roads and Trails Terminology Report),

passable by high-clearance vehicles. 

Maintain the existing roaded-natural and 

rural settings 1⁄2 mile to either side of the 

road's centerline. 

Allocations for Visual Resource 

Management designed to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions are discussed 

in Section 2.6.1.7.

Secure easements and rights-of-way 

where needed to ensure long-term public 

access. 

Interpret monument features along the route, 

including the following:

prehistoric cultural features and

historic homesteads, settlements, and 

ranching history, and other natural and 

cultural features. 

Install directional, safety, and interpretive signs 

to enhance public use, enjoyment, and 

stewardship of the route. 

Mitigate impacts to wildlife movement to ensure 

achievement of the DFC.

Within Front Country

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Recreation Use: 

Develop trails as needed to protect 

monument's resources and improve 

interpretive opportunities. 

Ensure that all construction is 

compatible for social and managerial 

settings, see Section 2.6.1.5.

Design trails to blend into the 

environment. 

Build loop, connector, and linear trails, 

depending on recreation, access, 

interpretation, education, and resource 

objectives. 

Build trails to maintain connectivity 

to recreation opportunities such as 

equestrian use, hiking, and viewing 

cultural sites. 

Build trails to link with other connector 

trails outside the monument. 

Explore opportunities to link networks 

of trails within the monument to those 

outside the monument on other BLM's 

lands, or with the adjacent jurisdictions, 

where linkages would conform 

to monument's values and would not 

impair protecting monument resources. 

Place priority for trail development on 

archaeological sites developed for 

interpretive use and visitation. 

Build other trails for visitor access and 

enjoyment of the monument's resources, 

including the following: self-guided 

nature and cultural resource trails; trails 

to interpretive sites not accessible by 

vehicle; or longer trails linking multiple 

sites for day or multiple-day trips. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use:

Relocate segments of routes when 

needed to reduce resource damage 

and help protect the monument's 

resources.

Allow relocation of routes for access to 

public lands around privately owned 

parcels (inholdings), if needed to meet 

administrative or public needs. 

All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

Design construction to blend into the 

environment. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Public Access
Chapter 2

194

All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Travel 

Management Section 2.7.2.10. All 

public vehicle travel is restricted to 

designated routes.

Require emergency vehicles, including 

air support, to use designated routes 

whenever possible and practical. 

Set speed limits for OHV use to provide 

for visitor safety and to minimize visitor 

conflicts. 

Maintain safe public access, which may 

include the following: designing and 

installing needed improvements at lowwater crossings, installing vehicle 

control guards, and enforcing traffic 

laws and other applicable regulations

for visitor safety.

Within Back Country

Trail Construction for non-motorized and nonmechanized recreation use: 

Build nonintrusive trails to allow 

visitors to access areas of interest, to 

enhance recreation experiences, and to 

protect monument's values. Trail design 

could vary from built, engineered routes 

to trails marked only with fiberglass 

posts without any construction. 

Do not allow trails or trail 

construction to degrade monument 

resources. 

Design trails to blend into the 

environment. 

Keep trails compatible with social and 

managerial settings and manage 

them to meet VRM II objectives. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

Routes open for administrative use will 

be maintained as needed to provide for 

the use. 

Allow emergency route construction to 

maintain access for permitted operations 

and administrative purposes within the 

Back Country RMZ. No other 

construction would be allowed unless 

necessary to meet DFCs. 

Off-Highway Vehicles 

Prohibit OHV travel in the Back 

Country RMZ. 

Permit emergency response vehicles, 

including aircraft landing, in the Back 

Country RMZ. If practical, these 

vehicles should use existing routes or 

areas void of vegetation and cultural 

resources. 

Non-emergency administrative use of 

vehicles may be allowed in the Back 

Country on missions pre-approved by 

the BLM's field manager. If practical, 

these vehicles should use existing routes 

or areas void of vegetation and cultural 

resources. 

Within Passage

Trail Construction for Non-motorized and Nonmechanized Recreation Use: 

Same as for Front Country RMZ. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

Relocate segments of existing routes to 

reduce resource damage and to help 

protect monument's resources.

All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

Design construction to blend into the 

environment. 

Where deemed necessary to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions, roads or 

trails may be closed and reclaimed to a 

natural state. 

Off-Highway Vehicles 
Chapter 2

195

All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Travel Management

Section 2.7.2.10. 

Allow continued vehicular access (both 

motorized and non-motorized 

mechanized) along designated vehicle 

routes. Do not upgrade 

routes but maintain them for access at 

current levels, speeds, and types. In 

some cases, conduct route maintenance 

to purposely limit vehicular type or 

speed. For example, a route may be 

purposely maintained in a primitive 

condition to discourage ATVs or fourwheel drive vehicles from traveling at 

speeds exceeding 25 to 30 miles per 

hour. 

Ensure that emergency vehicles, 

including air support, use designated 

routes whenever possible and practical. 

When not possible or 

practical, emergency vehicles should, as 

much as possible, minimize disturbance 

of vegetation and the risk to monument 

resources by using existing openings 

and disturbed areas. 

Establish speed limits for OHV use to 

provide for visitor safety and to 

minimize visitor conflicts. 

Maintain access and provide for visitor 

safety. 

Implementation Actions

Public Access

The designated route network within 

the national monument would include the 

following:

25 miles of secondary roads, accessible 

in good weather by two-wheel-drive 

vehicles;

69 miles of tertiary roads, 

accessible mainly by four-wheel drive, 

ATVs and motorcycles or, in some 

areas, high-clearance, two-wheel drive 

vehicles;

25 miles of tertiary roads are closed to 

public use, yet administrative use will be 

permitted as necessary; and

52 miles of roads would be closed to all 

uses and be restored or allowed to 

naturally reclaim.

Please see Map 2-76 for route decisions. Routes 

designated in the monument are shown below.

Open Designated Routes 94 miles

Closed Routes 52 miles

Administrative Routes 25 miles

New Routes 0 miles

Appendix W provides detailed information on 

the basis for decisions on proposed route 

designations. It includes a Route Designation 

Summary Table that gives a brief summary of 

the rationale for each route decision, along with 

the corresponding number assigned by the BLM 

to each road and trail. 

 

2.6.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area 

BLM has developed Alternative E as the 

proposed management plan for the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. The land use 

allocations and management actions under this 

Alternative would best facilitate responsible use 

of resources within the planning area, while 

continuing to protect fragile resources.

Alternative E proposes six MUs (Map 2-77).

2.6.2.1 Management Applicable 

to the Entire BradshawHarquahala under this 

Alternative

The following section presents management 

actions for Alternative E that apply throughout 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area (i.e. 

they are not specific to any MU).
Chapter 2

196

2.6.2.1.1 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative E proposes 39,395 acres of the 

lands within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area as potentially suitable for disposal. Of 

these, 29,870 acres are potentially available for 

sale or disposal under any authority, and 9,525 

acres would be available only through 

exchange. The lands include scattered parcels 

outside the planning area and others as shown in 

Map 2-78. Criteria limiting which lands might 

be selected as suitable for disposal are described 

in Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter in the discussion 

under Lands and Realty.

Lands considered for potential acquisition would 

include State and private lands (willing seller) 

within the planning area and would be in 

accordance with resource management 

prescriptions in this land use plan. These lands 

would meet the criteria described under Lands 

and Realty in the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas section of this chapter, as well as 

program objectives reflected in Alternative E.

Utility and Transportation Corridors

New utility corridors within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area (Map 2-79) would be 

designated for future expected demands. These 

designations respond to the demand for the 

intensifying the power grid and conform to the 

utility regulations of the Arizona Corporation 

Commission.

To accommodate recent and future development 

needs, the Bradshaw-Harquahala Land Use Plan 

will designate two transportation corridors: the 

Wickenburg Bypass and the Canamex Corridor. 

No existing state highway system routes 

(Interstate, U.S. routes, and Arizona State 

routes) would be designated as transportation 

corridors. The existing highway system routes, 

as they pertain to public lands, have been issued 

right-of-ways, and will remain issued under a 

right-of-way. 

In the newly designated transportation corridors, 

other uses would be allowed when the uses are 

compatible.

Management Actions

The Wickenburg Bypass and the 

Canamex Corridor will be identified and 

designated as transportation corridors 

within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Land 

Use Planning Process.

Co-locate other compatible uses within 

the designated transportation corridors, 

unless doing so would negatively impact 

the transportation corridors.

2.6.2.1.2 Rangeland 

Management

Land Use Allocation

Authorize 93 grazing authorizations within the 

grazing allotment boundaries shown on Map 2-

21.

Desired Future Condition

Watersheds are in properly functioning 

condition, including their upland, riparian, and 

aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions 

support infiltration, storage, and release of water 

that are in balance with climate and landform.

Ecological processes are maintained to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities.

Management Actions

Implement grazing management changes as 

needed to produce riparian areas that are in 

or are making progress toward proper 

functioning condition. Base grazing 

management changes on allotment evaluations, 

which analyze compliance with the Land Health 

Standards and the Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration described in the Rangeland 

Management discussion of the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 
Chapter 2

197

chapter. Changes could include, but may not be 

limited to; seasonal grazing, grazing rotation, or 

no grazing.

Build livestock control fences and alternative 

water sources where needed to meet natural 

resource objectives. Fence construction and 

maintenance will follow guidance provided in 

BLM's handbook on Fencing No. 1741-1.

2.6.2.1.3 Mineral Resources 

Management

Leasable Minerals

Open all lands for mineral and geothermal 

leasing and exploration except lands with 

existing segregations or withdrawals. Map 2-

80 shows the leasable mineral allocations.

Open lands reconveyed to the Federal 

Government to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and exploration.

Issue lease applications, with needed 

restrictions, to protect 

important resources. Include stipulations based 

on interdisciplinary review of individual 

proposals and environmental analysis.

Saleable Minerals (Mineral Materials)

The following management actions for saleable 

minerals are shown on Map 2-81.

Except for legislatively withdrawn areas and 

other withdrawn and segregated areas, open all 

public lands within the planning area to mineral 

material disposal, on a case-by-case basis.

Open lands that have been reconveyed to the 

Federal Government and managed by BLM to 

mineral material disposal under applicable laws, 

except on the floodplain of riparian areas.

Locatable Minerals

The following management actions for locatable 

minerals are shown on Map 2-82. 

Withdraw Tule Creek ACEC from mineral 

entry. All other public lands within the planning 

area would be open to locatable mineral 

activities except for legislatively withdrawn 

areas and other withdrawn and segregated areas.

Lands that have been reconveyed to the Federal 

Government and managed by BLM would 

be open to location under the mining laws, 

except within riparian areas.

2.6.2.1.4 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

All public lands within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be allocated as 

limited use areas, with motorized and 

mechanized vehicle uses limited to designated 

routes. The Hassayampa River Canyon, Hells 

Canyon, Harquahala Mountains, Big Horn 

Mountains and Hummingbird Spring 

Wildernesses would remain closed to motorized 

and mechanized uses (Map 2-16).

Desired Future Conditions

Define, designate, implement, and monitor 

a comprehensive travel management network 

affording a range of high-quality and diverse 

motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities. The network would consist of a 

system of roads, primitive roads, and trails. The 

travel management network and associated 

recreation opportunities would be consistent 

with other resource management objectives and 

recreation settings for the area.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until such 

time that final route designations are made, 

motorized and mechanized vehicles are 

restricted to currently inventoried routes. See 

Section 2.7.3.7 for a more detailed description of 

limitations.
Chapter 2

198

Administrative Actions

BLM requires a standard evaluation process,

supported by software and database and that is 

compatible with GIS functionality. An 

evaluation process, similar to one described in 

Appendix D, will be used to establish a 

designated public access and route system 

within the Black Canyon Management Unit to 

support resource objectives consistent with 

Alternative E..

Develop comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management Plans for the 

management units and other public lands within 

the planning area within five years of plan 

completion. These plans would implement route 

designations on the public lands.

2.6.2.1.5 Recreation Resources

Appendix S, Benefits-Based Recreation, 

contains detailed descriptions of special 

recreation management areas and recreation 

settings in each Management Unit of the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. In 

accordance with BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook, Appendix C, this information 

addresses management objectives for the 

specific recreation opportunities to be produced 

and the outcomes to be attained (activities, 

experiences, and benefits). Also included are 

prescriptions for facilitating the attainment of 

beneficial outcomes and an activity planning 

framework that addresses management, 

marketing, and monitoring actions needed to 

achieve management objectives and setting 

prescriptions. 

Rather than defining a maximum allowable

number of Special Recreation Permits within a 

given Management Unit, the BLM will review 

permit applications on a case-by-case basis.

Permit numbers will be determined and may be 

increased or decreased through adaptive 

management, which is described in section 

2.7.2.7.

2.6.2.2 Management Units

The following is the list of list of MUs selected 

for Alternative E and the document sections they 

are discussed in (Map 2-77):

Black Canyon MU, Section 2.6.2.2.1,

Map 2-83. 

Castle Hot Springs MU, 

Section 2.6.2.2.2, Map 2-84. 

Hassayampa MU, Section 2.6.2.2.3, 

Map 2-85. 

Harquahala MU, Section 2.6.2.2.4, Map 

2-86. 

Harcuvar MU, Section 2.6.2.2.5, Map 2-

87. 

Upper Agua Fria River Basin MU, 

Section 2.6.2.2.6, Map 2-88. 

Each MU represents a geographic region 

and contains a variety of land use 

allocations, Desired Future Conditions (DFC), 

and management actions for the allocations.

General DFC and management actions can be 

found in the Management Units discussion of 

the Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area section of this 

chapter.

2.6.2.2.1 Black Canyon 

Management Unit

The Black Canyon MU stretches from the 

southern end of Table Mesa on the south to 

Cordes Junction on the north. It is bounded by 

Agua Fria National Monument and Tonto 

National Forest on the east and the Prescott 

National Forest on the west Map 2-83). 

The Black Canyon MU contains the following 

land:

68,730 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

12,600 acres of Arizona State land, 

6,780 acres of private land, and

1,100 acres of county parklands in both 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. 
Chapter 2

199

2.6.2.2.1.1 Special Designations

Nomination to National Recreation Trail 

System

Black Canyon Trail

Desired Future Condition

Provide for the ever-increasing outdoor 

recreation needs of an expanding urban 

population to promote the preservation of, public 

access to, travel within, and enjoyment and 

appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and 

historic resources of the Black Canyon corridor.

A non-motorized National Recreation 

Trail should be established primarily near urban 

areas, secondarily within scenic areas, and along 

historic travel routes of the area. A motorized 

route will generally parallel the trail to improve 

administrative access needs and public long 

distance travel using vehicles. 

Management Actions

Issue a right-of-way for the non-motorized, 

mechanized use trail of approximately 69 miles, 

and ancillary trails, and facilities to preserve 

public access and long-term character of this 

corridor.

Acquire easements or rights-of-way on nonFederal lands if trail segments or facilities are 

proposed to be located on any of these lands.

Recognize and accommodate longterm continuation of the trail and facilities in 

land tenure actions. Retain a 1/4-mile wide 

corridor (1/8 mile each side of the trail) along 

the trail and any ancillary facility for a 

permanent trail location. Ensure public access 

to the trail and related facilities through 

easements, rights-of-way, deed restrictions, or 

other suitable means.

Continue to work with the Black Canyon Trail 

Coalition and other public groups to build and 

maintain the trail. Engage motorized vehicle 

groups and other interested groups to build and 

maintain the parallel motorized route.

Develop at least eight trailheads and staging or 

camping areas near communities and vehicle 

access points to serve the Black Canyon Trail 

and adjoining public lands for the following 

purposes:

parking, 

unloading of OHVs and horses, and

picnicking.

Development could include the following:

information signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

water,

toilets,

loading ramps, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement. 

Limit to 5 acres the area of exposed barren soil 

for each site. Mark or delineate the perimeters 

with barriers to prevent expansion of the 

exposed areas. One proposed site is the heavily 

used site near the intersection of County Road 

59 (Crown King Road) and Forest Service Road 

684 (Castle Creek Road).

Evaluate the Black Canyon Trail for inclusion 

into the National Recreation Trail System, as 

described in the National Trails System Act of 

1968 (P.L.90-543).

2.6.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments 

Alternative E proposes no land tenure 

adjustments for the Black Canyon MU 

because it proposes no lands for disposal or 

acquisition.

Communication Sites

The MU has one designated communication site, 

the Black Canyon City communication site, 
Chapter 2

200

which would be retained and subject to valid 

existing rights.

Utility and Transportation Corridors 

Alternative E adjusts the boundary of the Black 

Canyon corridor, shown on Map 2-79. The 

northern portion of the corridor is roughly three 

miles wide and narrows to approximately 1 mile 

wide at the Bumblebee Ranch. The eastern 

boundary of the middle portion of the revised 

corridor has been shifted to the west to put the 

majority of the corridor below the rim of Black 

Mesa, away from the edge of I-17. The southern 

portion of the revised corridor, from about the 

Bumblebee Ranch south to Black Canyon City, 

would remain about one mile wide, with the east 

boundary following the south-bound lanes of I17 from near the Sunset Point Rest Area, south 

to Black Canyon City. 

A new corridor southwest of Agua Fria National 

Monument would be added to extend the Black 

Canyon utility corridor completely across land 

south and west of Black Canyon City.

2.6.2.2.1.3 Biological Resources

No biological allocations would be made within 

the Black Canyon MU. Biological resources 

would be subject to management guidance in 

Section 2.7.1.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter and in Section

2.7.3.4 - Biological Resources in 

the Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. 

2.6.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Black Canyon Corridor SCRMA (49,540 acres 

BLM). Allocate to public use sites that are 

easily accessible from the Black Canyon Trail.

Desired Future Condition

Selected prehistoric and historic sites are 

interpreted for public education and visitation.

Interpretive projects are completed in a manner 

that monitors and protects sites while allowing 

for public use. For more information on public 

use of cultural resources, see Appendix E. 

Management Actions

Build trails to link the following suitable 

selected sites to the Black Canyon Trail. Local 

site types potentially suitable for public use 

include prehistoric hilltop structures, rock art, 

mining camps, and features of the historic Black 

Canyon Sheep Driveway.

Develop historic properties for heritage 

tourism to contribute to their long-term 

preservation and productive use.

Implement some or all of the following and 

other actions at selected sites:

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites, 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and register boxes, 

and

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs. 

Stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in good 

condition, as needed. Regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours if they are conducted with protective 

stipulations in accordance with BLM's 

regulations and, where required, SRPs.
Chapter 2

201

Administrative Actions

Select sites for public use by considering the 

following: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

site condition and the feasibility of 

stabilizing areas or features to withstand 

visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM's recreation program would 

participate in developing sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 

economies. Historic properties for heritage 

tourism would be developed to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites.

2.6.2.2.1.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

The entire Management Unit would be allocated 

to the Black Canyon SRMA (68,730 acres 

BLM) with the following Recreation 

Management Zones within it:

Black Canyon Hiking and Equestrian 

Trails RMZ. 

Table Mesa RMZ. 

Desired Future Condition

Preserve scenic and open space values and 

provide an array of public opportunities for trailbased recreation within diverse and healthy 

landscapes.

Provide an assortment of intensively managed, 

intensively used trail-based motorized and nonmotorized recreation uses within the SRMA.

Emphasize motorized and non-motorized trail 

links east and west of I-17, links with Prescott 

and Tonto National Forests, Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park, the Castle Hot Springs area, the 

Great Western Trail, and connections to all 

communities.

Manage the recreation area to function as an 

open space gateway into Maricopa County from 

the north, managed for viewsheds and longrange vistas of valleys, hills, and the Bradshaw 

Mountains. Connect the Maricopa County Park 

System with a regional non-motorized trail 

system between Lake Pleasant Regional Park, 

the Cave Creek Recreation Area, and the Spur 

Cross Ranch Conservation Area.

Facilitate preserving a scenic open space 

corridor along I-17 between Yavapai and 

Maricopa Counties, welcoming visitors to 

Maricopa County and promoting area tourism.

Maintain recreation settings identified through 

inventory as shown on the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum on Map 3-11, except 

where otherwise stipulated in prescriptions of 

other allocations.

Secure more law enforcement and public user 

group involvement as a high priority to promote 

environmentally responsible recreation, 

discourage vandalism, protect the public, and 

protect the public investment in public lands.

Management Actions

Acquire legal public access to public lands 

through suitable easements, rights-of-way, or 

other methods.
Chapter 2

202

Develop a comprehensive trail system centered 

on the Black Canyon Trail. Identify, analyze, 

build, and designate new single-use and multiuse, hiking, equestrian, and OHV/vehicle routes 

for hikers, equestrians, mountain bicycles, 

ATVs, and four-wheel-drive enthusiasts, and 

linked to other trail systems and communities.

Routes would include motorized and nonmotorized Wickenburg-Lake Pleasant-Black 

Canyon City trail corridors and direct links with 

the Great Western Trail.

Specific activities envisioned in this area include 

trail development for the following:

differentiated use (separate motorized 

and non-motorized travel routes), 

single use (e.g. hiking or ATVs only), 

multi use (vehicles, bicycles, hiking, and 

equestrian use on a single trail), and

single-track use (e.g. motorcycles or 

mountain bicycles only). 

Locate, analyze, build and designate single or 

multiple-use, motorized (OHV) special 

recreation vehicle areas, loops, routes, and 

management strategies through interdisciplinary 

plans, with community and user input.

Locate and develop parking, staging areas and 

trailheads, as suitable, for the following 

purposes:

facilitate responsible use, 

ensure resource protection, 

parking, and

unloading OHVs and horses. 

Limit five acres per site of exposed barren soil.

Mark or delineate the perimeters with barriers to 

prevent expansion.

Prohibit motorized competitive races in the 

SRMA. 

Minimize visual disturbances to the area‘s open 

spaces, vistas, and viewsheds. Co-locate 

communication towers/facilities on existing 

powerlines or communication towers, using 

identified utility corridors whenever possible. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.3.2.2.1.6. Apply 

visual resource prescriptions for the SRMA or 

RMZs to all governmental, commercial, and 

private rights-of-way, easements, and other 

conveyances.

Pursue legal public access through the Lake 

Pleasant Regional Park using existing routes to 

provide access to archaeological and historic 

sites allocated for public use, or to achieve other 

resource objectives.

Land Use Allocation

Black Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Trails 

RMZ (8,325 acres)

Desired Future Condition

Complete the Black Canyon Hiking and 

Equestrian Trails alignment from State Highway 

74 to State Highway 69, with community and 

citizen participation. The trails will provide 

high-quality non-motorized recreation 

experiences for hikers, equestrians, and 

mountain bikers through the Black Canyon 

corridor.

Incorporate loops, links, and trailheads for both 

destination and point-to-point travel into 

the Black Canyon Trail design. Link the 

communities of Black Canyon, New River, 

Anthem, and Phoenix, and eventually develop a 

connecting trail system to include Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park and Tonto and Prescott National 

Forests.

Locate, analyze, build, and designate new trail 

segments as needed to replace those now used 

by motorized vehicles. Align these new 

segments as closely as possible along the 

historic sheep driveway corridor. Determine 

exact locations of the trail or any ancillary trails 

and facilities, in conjunction with; Maricopa and 

Yavapai County trails committees, communities, 

equestrian and other user groups, and interested 

citizens. Citizen working groups will help with 
Chapter 2

203

trail and facility alignments, site designation, 

design, and management.

Evaluate the trail for inclusion into the National 

Recreation Trail System in order to provide for 

the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of 

an expanding urban population and in order to 

promote the preservation of, public access to, 

travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of 

the open-air, outdoor areas and historic 

resources of the Black Canyon corridor. A 

National Recreation Trail should be 

established primarily, near urban 

areas, secondarily, within scenic areas and along 

historic travel routes of the area.

Management Actions

Issue a right-of-way for the trail and ancillary 

trails and facilities to preserve public access and 

long-term character.

Acquire easements or rights-of-way on nonFederal lands if the trail or facilities are 

proposed for any of these lands.

Recognize and accommodate longterm continuation of the trail and facilities in 

land tenure actions. Retain a 1/4-mile wide 

corridor (1/8 mile each side of the trail) along 

the trail and any ancillary facility for a 

permanent trail location. Ensure public access 

to the trail and related facilities through 

easements, rights-of-way, deed restrictions, or 

other suitable means.

Develop at least eight trailheads and staging or 

camping areas near communities; vehicle access 

points to serve the Black Canyon Trail and 

adjoining public lands for the following 

purposes:

parking, 

unloading of OHVs and horses, and

picnicking. 

Development could include the following:

information signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramps, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement. 

Limit to 5 acres the area of exposed barren soil 

for each site. Mark or delineate the perimeters 

with barriers to prevent expansion. One 

proposed site identified during planning is the 

heavily used site near the intersection of County 

Road 59 (Crown King Road) and Forest Service 

Road 684 (Castle Creek Road).

Evaluate the Black Canyon Trail for inclusion 

into the National Recreation Trail System, as 

described in the National Trails System Act of 

2002 (P.L.90-543).

Land Use Allocation

Table Mesa RMZ (11,050 acres BLM) 

Desired Future Condition

Manage for intensive motorized single and twotrack routes and general motorized recreation.

Acceptable dust control and compatibility with 

neighboring communities and landowners.

Semi-primitive motorized and roaded-natural 

settings. Users will occasionally be 

concentrated in developed sites, but recreation 

use will generally be dispersed.

Facilities to meet the basic needs of visitors and 

to enhance resource protection. Clear yet nonintrusive signing in most of the RMZ.

Management Actions

Develop facilities, staging areas, trails, signage, 

trailheads, and other sites when needed to 

protect resources, to promote visitor health and 

safety, or to maintain recreation opportunities. 

Develop large (five to ten acres) and small (oneacre) staging areas in the RMZ as needed for the 

following purposes:
Chapter 2

204

meet high motorized and non-motorized 

recreation demand, 

provide for parking, 

unloading of OHVs and horses, 

overnight camping, and

large special events. 

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramp, and 

soil stabilization for dust abatement.

Limit the total acres of exposed barren soil for 

the staging area sites to a maximum of 20. Mark 

or delineate the perimeter of staging areas with 

barriers to prevent expansion.

Develop at least two small day use areas for up 

to ten vehicles with trailers for the following 

purposes:

parking, 

unloading of OHVs and horses, and 

picnicking.

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramps, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement. 

Limit to 2 acres the area of exposed barren soil 

for each site. Mark or delineate the 

perimeters with barriers to prevent expansion. 

Manage recreational target shooting consistent 

with the "Recreational Target 

Shooting" guidelines in the 

Recreation discussion of the Management 

Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area section of this Chapter.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.1.7 (Map 2-75).

Administrative Actions

Engage a diverse group of stakeholders in a 

collective effort to conserve the scenery, open 

space, and recreation values of the Black 

Canyon SRMA. Promote citizen involvement 

and partnerships as an integral component to the 

SRMA management. Empower community 

workgroups to carry out stewardship and 

resource management activities.

Collaborate with the AGFD, Prescott and Tonto 

National Forests, Maricopa and Yavapai 

Counties, Lake Pleasant Regional Park, and land 

managers of other trails to link to trails on 

BLM's land.

Complete an OHV designation for all existing 

and proposed motorized (OHV) routes and nonmotorized trails on public land within the Black 

Canyon SRMA within 2 years of plan approval.

Develop and implement collaborative 

management partnerships with the Maricopa 

County Parks and Recreation Department and 

the communities to share recreation management 

of the SRMA areas within Maricopa County.

Collaborative efforts would do the following:

ensure consistent management between 

partners, 

enhance the recreation experience of 

visitors and recreation permit holders, 

maintain open space and provide a 

natural gateway into Maricopa County, 

and 

facilitate development of the Maricopa 

County Regional Trails System Plan. 

Develop a long-term Black Canyon Hiking and 

Equestrian Trails master plan within 2 years of 

plan approval. Define proposed trail alignments, 

trailheads, linking trails, and other alignments 

within 1 year of plan approval.

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:
Chapter 2

205

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

2.6.2.2.1.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the Black Canyon Management Unit, 

13,490 acres would be allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

89. 

Desired Future Condition

Maintain and enhance non-motorized and 

primitive recreation experiences, tied to open 

space and natural landscapes. The desired 

recreation setting is semi-primitive nonmotorized. Management retains the area's 

undeveloped natural desert landscapes and 

scenic remote character and preserves 

outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation experiences. Conserve rock 

cabins, artifacts, petroglyph sites, prehistoric 

structures, and riparian areas. Manage the 

motorized segment of the Black Canyon Trail, 

which crosses this allocation, as a semi-primitive 

motorized corridor. This trail segment is multiuse, open to both motorized and non-motorized 

users. Recognize that wildlife populations and 

habitat are important aspects of the naturalness 

and actively manage them. 

Management Actions

Manage for a semi-primitive motorized 

recreation setting along designated routes and 

semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting 

beyond 1⁄2 mile from designated routes.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.1.7. 

Develop non-motorized trails when such 

trails are determined to be needed to 

protect resources, enhance recreation 

opportunities, or provide links with other trail 

systems.

Administrative Actions

Conduct a detailed site-specific inventory to 

determine the current level of disturbance. From 

this baseline data, establish standards to 

maintain proper levels of recreation and 

landscape disturbance to conserve the DFCs.

2.6.2.2.1.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative E throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-75. 

Within the Black Canyon Management Unit, 

allocate:

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to VRM Class II 

objectives. 

Black Canyon SRMA to VRM Class II 

objectives, except 

o Table Mesa RMZ to VRM Class 

III objectives, and a corridor 

along Interstate 17 near New 

River to VRM Class IV 

o Utility corridors would be 

allocated to VRM Class III or 

IV. 

2.6.2.2.1.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Close riparian areas in reconveyed lands to 

mineral entry, and close riparian areas 

throughout the MU to mineral material disposal, 

to preserve riparian values (Map 2-82 and Map 

2-81).
Chapter 2

206

2.6.2.2.1.9 Travel Management

The Black Canyon Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16). Until such time 

that final route designations are made, motorized 

and mechanized vehicles are restricted to 

currently inventoried routes. See Section

2.7.3.7 for a more detailed description of 

limitations.

Land Use Allocation

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

SCRMAs and cultural resource sites allocated to 

Public Use are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.1.4.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.1.5.

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in Section

2.6.2.2.1.6.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in

Chapter 3.

Develop non-motorized and non-mechanized 

trails when such trails are determined to be 

necessary to protect resources, enhance 

recreation opportunities, or provide links with 

other trail systems within the 13,490 acres 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

as shown on Map 2-83. 

Build trails to link the area's cultural sites to 

the Black Canyon Trail.

Establish the Black Canyon SRMA (68,730 

acres BLM), as allocated in the Recreation 

section of this plan with two Recreation 

Management Zones: Black Canyon Hiking and 

Equestrian Trails RMZ and the Table Mesa 

RMZ. Complete an OHV designation for all 

existing and proposed motorized (OHV) routes 

and non-motorized trails on public land, within 

the Black Canyon SRMA, within 2 years of plan 

approval.

Establish the Black Canyon Hiking and 

Equestrian Trails RMZ (8,325 acres). Issue a 

right-of-way for the trails, ancillary trails, and 

facilities to preserve public access and long-term 

character. Acquire easements or rights-of-way 

on non-Federal lands if the trail or facilities are 

proposed for any of these lands. 

Establish the Table Mesa RMZ (11,050 acres 

BLM). Manage for intensive motorized single 

and two-track routes and general motorized 

recreation.

2.6.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs 

Management Unit

Castle Hot Springs MU is bounded by State 

Route 74 (Carefree Highway) on the south, 

Prescott National Forest on the north, Black 

Canyon MU on the east, and Hassayampa MU 

on the west (Map 2-84). The MU contains the 

following lands: 

112,430 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

53,730 acres of Arizona State land, 

32,560 acres of private land, 

22,870 acres of county park lands in 

both Maricopa and Yavapai Counties 

(Lake Pleasant Regional Park), and

1,100 acres of Bureau of 

Reclamation lands outside Lake 

Pleasant Regional Park. 

2.6.2.2.2.1 Special Designations

Current Special Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 
Chapter 2

207

with Management Actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern

Tule Creek ACEC (640 acres) 

Relevance

The Tule Creek area contains significant historic 

and cultural values, including the Fort Tule site, 

a prehistoric hilltop ruin occupied from A.D. 

1100 to 1300, and a home site occupied by 

miners in the 1920s and 1930s. Tule Creek is an 

example of rare Sonoran Desert riparian system 

dominated by emergent vegetation and occupied 

by the endangered Gila topminnow.

Importance

The Fort Tule cultural site was probably used as 

a significant connection in a regional 

communication system based on signaling 

among hilltop sites. Fort Tule's role in the 

communication system can offer important 

information on prehistoric social systems during 

the era it was used.

Tule Creek and its sensitive biological resources 

are extremely vulnerable to disturbance and 

degradation from vehicle, mining, and livestock 

use. Continued protection of Tule Creek is 

important to the recovery of the endangered Gila 

topminnow.

Desired Future Condition

The integrity of the riparian area, endangered 

species habitat quality, and cultural resources are 

maintained and protected from degradation.

Management Actions

Close the fenced area to livestock grazing and 

motor vehicles.

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry, and 

close it to mineral materials disposal and mineral 

leasing.

Develop an interpretive site for biological and 

cultural resources.

Continue patrols of archaeological sites 

with help from Site Steward Volunteers. Where 

needed, take measures to protect sites such as 

the following: 

stabilizing structures, 

fencing or closing sensitive sites to 

public visitation,

excavating to collect scientific 

information from threatened sites, and

taking other actions to be determined by 

site-specific needs.

Ensure that activities that change the visual 

landscape conform to the historical setting.

2.6.2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative E proposes no land tenure 

adjustments for the Castle Hot Springs 

MU because no lands there have been proposed 

for disposal or acquisition.

Communication Sites

The Castle Hot Springs MU has no designated 

communication sites.

Utility and Transportation Corridors

No new utility corridors would be designated 

within this MU.

All State highway system routes would be 

designated as transportation corridors, including 

a new 1-mile-wide corridor along SR 74, 1/2 

mile on either side of the highway centerline.

Public access would be acquired from Highway 

74 to Castle Hot Springs Road through Morgan 
Chapter 2

208

City Wash across several Arizona Trust and 

private land parcels in Township 6 North, Range 

1 West, sections 6, 9, 22, and 23; Township 7 

North, Range 2 West, sections 2 and 36; and in 

Township 7 North, Range 1 West, section 31 

(Map 2-90).

Select and develop an improved route north of 

Lake Pleasant to Table Mesa, extending from 

French Creek Road to Interstate 17, for public 

safety, administrative, and recreation access. 

To ensure long-term public access, secure 

easements or rights-of-way crossing private or 

State parcels, when identified. This 

action would secure motorized legal public 

access from the Castle Hot Springs community 

to Interstate 17. 

2.6.2.2.2.3 Biological Resources

No allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Castle Hot Springs 

MU. Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

2.6.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria SCRMA (27,240 acres 

BLM)

Desired Future Condition 

Selected prehistoric and historic sites are 

interpreted for public education and visitation.

Interpretive projects are completed in a manner 

that monitors and protects sites while allowing 

for public use. For further information on public 

use of cultural resources, see Appendix E.

Management Actions

The following sites north of Lake Pleasant are 

allocated to public use: Agua Fria Fort and AZ 

T:4:1 (PC), which are prehistoric hilltop sites, 

and the historic Humbug hydraulic mining 

complex. 

Select other sites for public use by considering 

the following: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

site condition and the feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to 

withstand visitation, 

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

Implement a combination of the some or all of 

following and other actions at selected sites:

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites, 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and register boxes, 

and

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs.

Stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in good 

condition. Regularly monitor the condition of 

sites.

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours, if they are conducted with 
Chapter 2

209

protective stipulations, in accordance 

with BLM's regulations and, where required, 

SRPs.

Administrative Actions

Select sites for public use by considering the 

following:

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

condition of the site and the feasibility 

of stabilizing selected areas or features 

to withstand visitation,

visitor safety, 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM recreation program would participate 

in developing sites for public use.

Cooperate with agencies, tribes, and local 

communities in supporting heritage tourism 

programs that benefit local economies. Develop 

historic properties for heritage tourism to 

contribute to their long-term preservation and 

productive use.

BLM continues to work with the Site Steward 

Program to regularly monitor the condition of 

sites.

2.6.2.2.2.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

The entire Management Unit would be allocated 

to the Castle Hot Springs SRMA (112,430 acres 

BLM) containing the following Recreation 

Management Zones: 

Hieroglyphic Mountains RMZ. 

Sheep Mountain RMZ. 

Baldy Mountain RMZ

Desired Future Condition

Emphasize preserving open space and retaining 

scenic and visual qualities. Sustain recreation, 

cultural, and biological assets while recognizing 

and protecting private property rights. Retain 

and acquire legal access to public lands.

Management emphasizes a wide range of 

regional recreation needs, while accomplishing 

the following:

maintaining the quality of life for local 

communities, 

preserving open space and natural 

landscapes, and

ensuring resource conservation.

Partnerships and collaborative efforts play a key 

role in successfully managing this SRMA. 

Maintain an array of recreation settings (rural, 

roaded-natural, semi-primitive motorized, and 

semi-primitive non-motorized) and 

opportunities. Recreation activities include the 

following:

intense route-based motorized use, 

permitted recreation events, 

developed facilities, 

developed hiking and equestrian trails, 

and

remote semi-primitive wilderness 

settings with non-motorized recreation 

opportunities.

Intensively manage all recreation uses with a 

significant BLM ground presence by 

using signing, facilities, law enforcement, and 

volunteers. 

Establish over the long term a system of highquality OHV and hiking trails affording many 

opportunities for hikers, equestrians, mountain 

bikers, four-wheel drivers, ATVs, and 

motorcycle enthusiasts. 
Chapter 2

210

Management Actions 

Manage recreational target shooting consistent 

with the "Recreational Target 

Shooting" guidelines in the 

Recreation discussion of the Management 

Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area section of this Chapter.

Analyze the feasibility and manageability of 

establishing parts of the SRMA as a fee-for-use 

area. The feasibility study would include an 

analysis to determine if fees are necessary to 

maintain or enhance the recreation opportunities 

and conditions of the area. Fees would be used 

to: 

maintain motorized and non-motorized 

trails and facilities, 

improve law enforcement, and

enhance user and community education, 

stewardship, and volunteer programs. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.2.7 (Map 2-75).

Evaluate and designate all existing and 

potentially mechanized (OHV), non-mechanized 

trails and routes on public land in the Castle Hot 

Springs SRMA within three years of plan 

approval using a structured process, such as the 

one described in Appendix D. 

Design and develop a comprehensive motorized 

and non-motorized vehicle route system. 

Identify, analyze, build, and designate new 

single-use and multi-use hiking, equestrian, and 

OHV/vehicle routes. Network design 

emphasizes connections that would link them to 

local trail systems and communities. Routes 

include a proposed motorized and nonmotorized Wickenburg-Lake Pleasant Regional 

Park-Black Canyon Trail corridor. Planning for 

this network requires collaboration with the 

AGFD, Prescott National Forest, Maricopa and 

Yavapai Counties, and Lake Pleasant Regional 

Park, to link to trails on BLM's land. Activities 

envisioned in this area include trail development 

for: 

differentiated use (motorized and nonmotorized travel), 

single use (e.g. hiking or ATVs only), 

multi-use (vehicles, bicycles, hiking, 

and equestrian use), 

single-track use (e.g. motorcycles or 

mountain bicycles only), and

multi-use trails and foot, bike, and horse 

trails linking Wickenburg and the Lake 

Pleasant Regional Park, with other links 

to Peoria and Phoenix trail systems, and 

the Black Canyon Trail. 

Locate and develop staging areas, trails, signs, 

trailheads, and other sites when needed for 

resource protection, visitor health and safety, 

or maintaining recreation opportunities.

Locate and develop small day-use areas for up 

to ten vehicles with trailers to provide the 

following:

parking, 

unloading OHVs and horses, and

picnicking.

Development could include the following:

informational signing, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement.

Limit to two acres the area of exposed barren 

soil for each site. Mark or delineate the 

perimeter with barriers to prevent expansion.

Confine motorized competitive races to the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains RMZ. 

Land Use Allocation

Hieroglyphic Mountains RMZ (16,510 acres 

BLM). 
Chapter 2

211

Desired Future Condition

Manage mainly for intensive camping and OHV 

use. The area would include motorized single 

and two-track routes for general motorized 

recreation use, commercial use, organized OHV 

events and competitive races.

Emphasize acceptable dust control and 

compatibility with neighboring communities and 

landowners. 

Maintain semi-primitive motorized and roadednatural recreation settings with users 

concentrated in some areas. 

Develop facilities with a variety of amenities 

consistent with the desired recreation setting.

Provide nonintrusive directional route signs and 

user information in the RMZ. 

Management Actions

Make all designated routes within this 

zone available for general motorized recreation 

use, commercial use, organized OHV events 

and competitive races. 

The number of miles of single and two-track 

motorized routes allocated to motorized 

competitive races will be determined by trail 

sustainability and durability along with our 

ability to reduce environmental issues and social 

conflicts. A course of routes used for 

competitive races would optimally provide for 

an array of challenges for truck, buggy, ATV, 

and motorcycle competitive races. 

Locate at least 20 miles of single and two-track 

motorized routes to provide a unique array of 

challenges for truck, buggy, ATV, and 

motorcycle competitive races.

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to two per year.

Locate and develop the Boulders staging area for 

the following purposes:

meeting intense motorized recreation 

demands, 

parking, 

unloading of OHVs, 

overnight camping, and

large special-event operations.

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

vault toilets, 

campground host facilities, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement. 

Limit to 25 acres the area of exposed barren 

soil. Mark or delineate the perimeter to prevent 

further expansion.

Manage recreational target shooting consistent 

with the "Recreational Target shooting"

guidelines in the Recreation discussion of the 

Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area section of this 

Chapter.

Locate and develop at least one small staging 

and camping area for up to ten vehicles with 

trailers for the following purposes:

parking, 

unloading OHVs, and

picnicking.

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement.

Limit to 5 acres the areas of exposed barren 

soil. Mark or delineate the perimeter to prevent 

expansion.

Apply proactive adaptive management to 

manage potential conflicts with surrounding 

communities and landowners, and potential 
Chapter 2

212

impacts to resources. Mitigation may be needed 

to reduce these problems. The following are 

examples of mitigation:

implementing speed limits on routes to 

reduce fugitive dust, 

stabilizing soil on routes,

closing routes for some types of 

activities, 

imposing stricter noise reduction 

standards, and

establishing seasonal or time-of-day 

use restrictions or both. 

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Conduct these assessments with 

public collaboration involving interested 

residents, users, and other interested parties.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.2.7.

Land Use Allocation

Sheep Mountain RMZ (4,270 acres). 

Desired Future Condition

Preserve Sheep Mountain's natural landscape, 

open-space values, and wildlife habitat.

Maintain a semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation setting.

Management Actions

Close all vehicle routes identified as reclaimed 

during our route inventory, except those 

evaluated to be needed for administrative access 

to the area. 

Prohibit the building of new motorized routes 

and commercial rights-of-way. 

Prohibit discretionary surface-disturbing 

activities not compatible with achieving the 

DFC.

Administrative Actions

Establish a citizen, Government, and 

organization-based partnership to guide 

management of the SRMA, including 

community groups, the City of Peoria, 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, user groups, 

and other interested parties.

Work closely with law enforcement 

authorities with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Yavapai County, Maricopa County, 

City of Peoria, and other agencies with 

jurisdiction to: 

enhance visitor and resident safety, 

improve resource protection, and

ensure BLM's compliance with county, 

State, or Federal environmental laws. 

Land Use Allocation

Baldy Mountain RMZ (6,550 acres) 

Desired Future Condition 

Retain a natural landscape between the Hells 

Canyon Wilderness and Lake Pleasant Regional 

Park. This area complements the landscape and 

recreation opportunities in the regional county 

park and the entire Castle Hot Springs SRMA.

Provide high-quality non-motorized recreation 

in a region otherwise allocated to motorized 

recreation. Preserve desert tortoise habitat, 

sustain riparian areas, and maintain the area‘s 

value for use by a wild burro herd. Maintain 

semi-primitive motorized recreation setting 

along designated routes. Manage areas beyond 

1⁄2 mile from a designated route for a semiprimitive non-motorized setting.
Chapter 2

213

Management Actions

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated 

routes.

Develop up to five non-motorized trails and 

trailheads to link with the Hells Canyon trail 

system and ultimately to the Maricopa County 

trail system. Emphasize hiking, bicycling and 

equestrian opportunities in recreation 

management planning. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.2.7.

2.6.2.2.2.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

No allocation to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be made within the Castle 

Hot Springs MU.

2.6.2.2.2.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative E throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-75. 

Within the Castle Hot Springs Management 

Unit, allocate:

Hells Canyon Wilderness Area is 

allocated to VRM Class I, 

Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn 

Mine Road to Class II standards 1⁄2 mile 

to either side of the road's centerline, 

and

Castle Hot Springs SRMA to Class II 

objectives, except Hieroglyphics 

Mountain RMZ to Class III objectives. 

2.6.2.2.2.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

Withdraw Tule Creek ACEC from mineral 

entry; close it to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and close to mineral material disposal. 

2.6.2.2.2.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Castle Hot Springs Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16). Until such 

time that final route designations are made, 

motorized and mechanized vehicles are 

restricted to currently inventoried routes. See 

Section 2.7.3.7 for a more detailed description of 

limitations.

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.2.1.

SCRMAs and cultural resource sites allocated to 

Public Use are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.2.4.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.2.5.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Close the fenced area within the Tule Creek 

ACEC (640 acres) to motor vehicles.
Chapter 2

214

The Castle Hot Springs SRMA (112,430 acres 

BLM) would include two Recreation 

Management Zones as allocated in the 

Recreation section of this plan, the Hieroglyphic

Mountains RMZ and the Sheep Mountain RMZ, 

with specific vehicle and access prescriptions.

Evaluate and designate all existing and 

potentially mechanized (OHV), non-mechanized 

trails and routes on public land in the Castle Hot 

Springs SRMA within three years of plan 

approval using a structured process, such as the 

one described in Appendix D. Design and 

develop a comprehensive motorized and nonmotorized vehicle route system. 

The Hieroglyphic Mountains RMZ (16,510 

acres BLM) would include motorized single and 

two-track routes for general motorized 

recreation use, commercial use, organized OHV 

events, and competitive 

races. Make all designated routes within this 

zone available for general motorized recreation 

use, commercial use, organized OHV events, 

and competitive races. Locate at least 20 miles 

of single and two-track motorized routes to 

provide a unique array of challenges for truck, 

buggy, ATV, and motorcycle competitive races.

Within the Sheep Mountain RMZ (4,270 

acres) all vehicle routes identified as reclaimed 

through the route designation process would be 

closed except those necessary to 

facilitate administrative access to the area. 

Prohibit the building of new motorized routes.

Consider development of hard-surfaced walking 

trails at selected cultural sites within the Lake 

Pleasant/Agua Fria SCRMA (27,240 acres 

BLM) for interpretation, education, and 

visitation to prehistoric and historic sites.

Implementation Actions

Designation of a route network within 3 years of 

plan completion will be considered an 

implementation action.

2.6.2.2.3 Hassayampa 

Management Unit

The Hassayampa MU is bounded on the east by 

Prescott National Forest and the Castle Hot 

Springs MU and on the west by Harquahala 

MU. The southern edge is south of the Vulture 

Mountains, and the northern boundary is north 

of Yarnell. The Town of Wickenburg is 

located at the MU's center (Map 2-85). The MU 

contains the following land: 

181,910 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

130,580 acres of Arizona State land, 

50,610 acres of private land, and

460 acres of county-administered lands 

in Maricopa and Yavapai Counties 

2.6.2.2.3.1 Special Designations

Current Special Designations within the 

Management Unit would be managed consistent 

with management actions described in Section

2.7.3.2 in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section of 

this chapter.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Vulture Mountain ACEC (6,120 acres BLM)

Relevance

The cliffs along the crest of Vulture and 

Caballeros Peaks are significant habitat features 

used by many raptor species. Also, they are a 

pristine, scenic landmark. These cliffs are 

essential to maintaining the current biological 

diversity of the surrounding area. Large 

concentrations of nesting hawks and falcons use 

these spectacular cliff faces.

Importance

The value of the cliffs for nesting raptors is 

significant for a large area. These cliffs are 

virtually the only suitable nesting cliffs for many 

miles. Nesting raptors are sensitive to 
Chapter 2

215

construction-related activities. If the cliffs and 

surrounding area are not protected from these 

activities, cliff-nesting raptors would disappear 

from much of the area.

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain the raptor nesting habitat values of the 

cliffs and the surrounding foraging habitat.

Management Actions

Consider building new routes only when 

necessary to meet natural resource objectives 

and where routes would not degrade the 

resources for which the ACEC is being created.

Prohibit building new recreation sites;

however, maintain the Vulture Peak Trail and 

trailheads to their current condition and 

standards.

Mitigate vehicle routes that conflict with 

maintaining wildlife values to ensure 

achieving the DFC. Mitigation measures 

include relocating routes, limiting season, and 

closing routes.

Prohibit rock climbing within the ACEC.

Acquire non-Federal lands within the ACEC as 

available.

2.6.2.2.3.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative E proposes 741 acres in Hassayampa 

MU as suitable for disposal. These lands were 

selected in accordance with resource 

management prescriptions in this land use plan 

as limited by criteria described in Section 2.7.1.2 

Lands and Realty.

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites are within 

this MU, and Alternative E proposes none for 

this area.

Utility and Transportation Corridors (Map 2-

79)

Multiple-Purpose Corridors

Designate a new 1-mile-wide corridor leg on the 

Meade-Phoenix corridor (partly in Hassayampa 

MU, partly in Harquahala MU).

Transportation Corridors

Transportation corridors are discussed in Section

2.6.2.1.1. 

Two locations for the Wickenburg Bypass are 

currently under consideration by Arizona 

Department of Transportation. Once the route is 

chosen, a 1-mile-wide transportation corridor 

will be designated along the route. The corridor 

may not be centered on the right-of-way, but 

will be located with the bypass within it, and the 

boundaries adjusted to minimize conflict with 

resources or management objectives.

2.6.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources

Alternative E proposes no biological 

designations for the Hassayampa MU.

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

2.6.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocations

Wickenburg/Vulture SCRMA (124,000 acres 

BLM) 

Weaver/Octave SCRMA (2,730 acres BLM) 

Desired Future Condition 

Manage selected prehistoric and historic sites for 

interpretive development, educational uses, and 
Chapter 2

216

public visitation. For further information on 

public use of cultural resources, see Appendix 

E.

Coordinate with the BLM's recreation program 

in developing sites for public use.

Cooperate with agencies, tribes, and local 

communities in supporting heritage tourism 

programs that benefit local economies. Develop 

historic properties for heritage tourism in a 

manner that contributes to their long-term 

preservation and productive use.

Management Actions

Develop the following historic sites for public 

use: Vulture City Cemetery, Constellation Road, 

Monte Cristo Mine, and a cemetery and stone 

structures in Weaver.

Select other sites for public use by considering 

the following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development, 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails, 

site condition and the feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to

withstand visitation, 

visitor safety,

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans, 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

A combination of the some or all of the 

following and other actions could be 

implemented at selected sites:

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and register boxes, 

and

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs. 

Stabilize, repair, and maintain sites in good 

condition. Regularly monitor the condition of 

sites.

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours, conducted with protective 

stipulations in accordance with BLM's 

regulations and, where required, SRPs.

2.6.2.2.3.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

The entire Management Unit would be allocated 

to the Hassayampa SRMA (181,910 acres 

BLM) with the following Recreation 

Management Zones (Map 2-85):

Stanton RMZ, 

Wickenburg Community RMZ, 

San Domingo Wash RMZ, 

Vulture Mine RMZ.

Desired Future Condition 

The long-term goals for the area are to: 

conserve the area‘s natural, scenic, 

recreation, and cultural resources, 

recognize and protect private property 

rights, and 

maintain diverse recreational 

opportunities for residents and visitors. 

Management emphasizes meeting a range of 

local and tourism-based regional recreation 

needs while maintaining the quality of life for 

local communities. Recreation activities include 

the following:
Chapter 2

217

intense motorized uses, 

permitted recreation events, 

developed facilities, and

intense non-motorized trail system.

Intensively manage all recreation uses with a 

significant BLM and citizen volunteer ground 

presence through signing, facilities, and law 

enforcement.

Establish a system of high-quality equestrian 

and motorized trails surrounding Wickenburg.

This trail system would afford many 

opportunities for all recreationists and enhance 

the lifestyle, culture, and cultural history of 

community residents.

Emphasize and maintain, in suitable areas, an 

array of rural, roaded-natural, semi-primitive 

motorized, and semi-primitive non-motorized 

settings; and experiences and opportunities for 

residents, tourists, and winter visitors. Maintain 

current recreation settings as depicted on the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum on Map 3-

11, except where otherwise stipulated in RMZ 

allocations.

Maintain long-term public access to the Yarnell 

hang gliding launching area and landing zones 

(Map 2-32). This site is one of the most valued 

in Arizona for successful launching of longdistance nonpowered flights.

Management Actions

Work closely with law enforcement 

authorities; including the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Yavapai County, Maricopa 

County, City of Peoria, and other agencies with 

jurisdiction to:

enhance visitor and resident safety, 

improve resource protection, and 

ensure BLM's compliance with county, 

State, or Federal environmental laws. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.3.7 (Map 2-75).

Limit motorized use to designated routes.

Develop and designate a comprehensive 

motorized and non-motorized trail system.

Identify, analyze, build, and designate new 

single- and multi-use, hiking, equestrian, and 

vehicle routes, and link them to local trail 

systems and communities. Routes include a 

proposed motorized and non-motorized 

Wickenburg-Lake Pleasant Regional Park-Black 

Canyon Trail corridor. Activities envisioned in 

this area include trail development as follows:

Differentiated use (motorized and nonmotorized travel), 

Single use (e.g. hiking or ATVs only), 

Multi-use (vehicles, bicycles, hiking, 

and equestrian use), 

Single-track use (e.g. motorcycles 

or mountain bicycles only), and

Multi-use trails and foot, bicycle, and 

horse trails linking Wickenburg and 

Lake Pleasant Regional Park, with other 

links to the Peoria/Phoenix trail systems 

and the Black Canyon Trail. 

Confine motorized competitive races to the San 

Domingo, Stanton, and Vulture RMZs.

Trial sustainability will determine the uses on 

the trail systems and the extent of the number of 

miles allocated to races. Sustainability 

determination will consider environmental 

factors (including, but not limited to: soil 

erosion, wildlife or cultural resource conflicts, 

conflicts with grazing management, air quality) 

as well as social concerns (including, but not 

limited to: noise, conflict with casual uses or 

other organized events, conflicts with other 

recreation activities such as hunting.)

Administrative Actions

Establish a working group to provide 

recommendations for managing the SRMA, 

including community groups, the Town of 

Wickenburg, Maricopa County, civic 

organizations, user groups, and other interested 

parties.
Chapter 2

218

Complete a detailed, comprehensive, sitespecific inventory and designation of all existing 

and proposed motorized (OHV) routes and nonmotorized trails on public land in the SRMA 

within 3 years of plan approval.

Land Use Allocation 

Stanton RMZ (6,050 acres BLM) 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide diverse recreation experiences while 

reducing unacceptable environmental 

impacts from the following recreation uses:

excessive and unregulated camping, 

activities of prospecting clubs, and

motorized activities

Maintain a variety of recreation settings and 

opportunities with an emphasis on semiprimitive motorized and roaded-natural 

settings and opportunities.

Management Actions

Allow for up to two motorized competitive races 

between October 1 and March 30. The number 

of miles of single and two-track motorized 

routes allocated to motorized competitive races 

will be determined by trail sustainability and 

durability along with our ability to reduce 

environmental issues and social conflicts. A 

course of routes used for competitive races 

would optimally provide for an array of 

challenges for truck, buggy, ATV, and 

motorcycle competitive races. 

Locate and develop trailheads, staging and 

camping areas, and other facilities as needed for 

resource protection. Provide for visitor safety.

Resolve social conflicts. Improve the quality of 

recreation experiences. Increase recreation 

opportunities.

Develop a diverse network of motorized vehicle 

routes for a range of OHV experiences and 

challenges, compatible with the existing nonmotorized trails in the RMZ.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.3.7.

Install informational, educational, and 

interpretive kiosks and trail signs where needed 

and suitable. Placement of interpretive signs 

along the Stanton-Octave-Yarnell road, as 

proposed under the Lower Gila North MFP, 

would be consistent with this management 

action.

Administrative Actions 

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

and 

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Land Use Allocation

Wickenburg Community RMZ (72,040 acres 

BLM) including the Red Top Trail System and 

"The Box" (Map 2-91).

Desired Future Condition 

Collaborate with a diverse group of Wickenburg 

citizens and organizations in a collective effort 

to conserve the ecological, cultural, open space, 

and recreation values of the Wickenburg area, so 

that it remains a place where people want to live, 

work, and recreate.

Preserve open space and provide a wide array of 

landscape-based recreation while conserving 

scenic landscapes and maintaining cultural and 

biological assets.

Offer quality recreation and tourism with proper 

management and marketing. Users exhibit a 
Chapter 2

219

strong land ethic for conserving and 

protecting the natural resources and cultural 

heritage of the Wickenburg RMZ.

Develop a system of high-quality equestrian and 

hiking trails that surround Wickenburg, buffer 

the area from urban sprawl, and preserve the 

open space of the local landscape. This trail 

system affords many opportunities for 

recreationists and enhances the lifestyle and 

cultural history of community residents.

Emphasize and maintain an array of rural, 

roaded-natural, semi-primitive motorized, and 

semi-primitive non-motorized settings; and 

opportunities in suitable areas for the enjoyment 

of residents, tourists, and winter visitors.

Conserve the canyon on the Hassayampa River 

known as "The Box" and surrounding lands as a 

recreation area for hiking, horseback riding, 

limited motorized use, picnicking, camping, and 

social gatherings, while protecting and 

enhancing the values of the riparian habitat.

Management Actions

Acquire the 19,396 acres of Arizona State land 

within the SRMA. Prioritize and pursue 

acquisition using the criteria in the Lands and 

Realty discussion of the Management Common 

to Both Planning Areas section of Chapter 2.

Lands will be acquired according to 

the following priorities: 

maintaining access and securing trail 

alignments, 

enhancing recreation opportunities, 

preserving scenery and open space, and

conserving riparian values. 

Maintain and upgrade the Vulture Peak Trail by 

rerouting or reengineering eroded trail segments. 

Develop and install facilities for horse 

camping south of Vulture Peak and south of 

Congress. Amenities could range from 

developed to more primitive facilities.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.3.7.

Administrative Actions

Complete a comprehensive strategy and trails 

plan to select and develop new single- and 

multi-use hiking, equestrian, and OHV trails for 

all lands in the RMZ.

Land Use Allocation

Red Top Trail System within the Wickenburg 

Community RMZ

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a high-quality non-motorized trail 

network and amenities in the Red Top Mountain 

area. Allow another route system for motorized 

uses where appropriate to avoid conflicting uses.

Management Actions

Identify, analyze, build and designate new trails 

less than 52 inches wide, as needed, for resource 

protection, visitor safety, or meeting 

management objectives.

Locate and develop a large non-motorized 

trailhead and staging area for the Red Top Trail 

System for the following purposes:

meeting the high demand for nonmotorized recreation, 

parking, 

unloading horses, 

overnight camping, and

organized events.

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

hitching posts, 

troughs for water hauled to the site, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement. 
Chapter 2

220

Limit to 10 acres the area of exposed barren 

soil. Mark or delineate the perimeter as needed 

to prevent expansion.

Locate and develop a small day use motorized 

trailhead and staging area for the Red Top Trail 

System, to accommodate up to ten vehicles with 

trailers, for the following purposes:

meeting motorized recreation demand 

reduce user conflicts, 

parking, 

unloading OHVs, and

picnicking. 

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement.

Limit to 2 acres the area of exposed barren soil 

for each site. Mark the area's perimeter with 

barriers to prevent expansion.

Identify, analyze, build, and designate an ATV 

and a motorcycle trail network in the Red Top 

Trail area to give the local community 

opportunities to shift motorized use from the 

designated non-motorized trails. Use existing 

designated motorized vehicle routes and 

create new trails less than 52 inches wide, if 

needed, to meet management objectives.

Administrative Actions

Revise the existing Red Top Trail Project Plan, 

in cooperation with the local community and 

interested user groups, to expand the nonmotorized Red Top Trail network. The revised 

plan would address actions to meet the high 

demand for non-motorized recreation.

Land Use Allocation

"The Box" RMZ (Map 2-91)

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a high-quality non-motorized recreation 

use area with amenities in Box Canyon, known 

as "The Box". 

Management Actions

Locate and develop picnic, camping, and public 

use areas and develop access to these sites.

Designate access routes for varied uses such as 

hiking and horseback riding.

Identify, analyze, build, and designate fourwheel drive, jeep, ATV, sand rail, and dirt bike 

trails with suitable use areas and limitations.

Close areas where sustainablilty cannot be

achieved. 

Develop facilities such as toilets, tables, parking, 

campsites, and other amenities where needed to 

protect resources or reduce user conflicts.

Administrative Actions

Establish partnerships with the Town of 

Wickenburg, Yavapai County, and 

community groups to pursue 

management endeavors in this area. Such 

endeavors include developing and implementing 

a site plan to guide recreation use.

Create a volunteer service and community 

partnership program to aid in visitor outreach 

efforts and organize community cleanup efforts.

Develop and conduct monitoring as facilities are 

built or designated so that suitable use limits can 

be set for picnic areas and campsites.

Land Use Allocation

San Domingo Wash RMZ (16,040 acres BLM) 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a Sonoran Desert wash and upland 

environment suitable for an array of motorized 
Chapter 2

221

and non-motorized uses. Manage for semiprimitive motorized and some roaded-natural 

settings.

Provide opportunities for the following 

while protecting the natural and cultural 

resources in the area:

intensive camping, 

OHV activities, 

equestrian use, 

recreation activities of prospecting 

clubs, 

event operations, and

motorized single and two-track routes 

for general motorized recreation use and 

competitive races 

Management Actions

The number of miles of single and two-track 

motorized routes allocated to motorized

competitive races will be determined by trail 

sustainability and durability along with our 

ability to reduce environmental issues and social 

conflicts. A course of routes used for 

competitive races would optimally provide for 

an array of challenges for truck, buggy, ATV, 

and motorcycle competitive races. 

Limit the number of motorized competitive to 2 

per year.

When needed for resource protection, visitor 

health and safety, or maintaining recreation 

opportunities, develop facilities such as the 

following:

staging areas, 

trails, 

signs, 

trailheads, and

other sites. 

Locate and develop one large motorized and 

non-motorized staging and camping area for the 

following purposes:

meeting the high motorized and nonmotorized recreation demand, 

parking and unloading OHVs and 

horses, 

overnight camping, and

event operations.

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement. 

Limit to 20 acres the site's areas of exposed 

barren soil. Mark or delineate the perimeter 

with barriers to prevent expansion.

Locate and develop at least one day-use staging 

area for the following purposes:

meeting the high motorized and nonmotorized recreation demand and

parking and unloading OHVs and 

horses, and picnicking. 

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement. 

Limit to 5 acres the site's areas of exposed 

barren soil. Mark or delineate the 

perimeter with barriers to prevent expansion.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.3.7.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 
Chapter 2

222

define desired conditions and standards, 

and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Land Use Allocation

Vulture Mine RMZ (30,100 acres BLM) 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a Sonoran Desert landscape suitable 

for intensive motorized single and two-track 

routes for general motorized recreation use, 

commercial use, organized OHV events and 

competitive races.

Emphasize and maintain the roaded-natural and 

semi-primitive motorized recreation settings.

Preserve the site and interpret mining and 

settlement history of the Vulture City Cemetery.

Management Actions

The number of miles of single and two-track 

motorized routes allocated to motorized 

competitive races will be determined by trail 

sustainability and durability along with our 

ability to reduce environmental issues and social 

conflicts. A course of routes used for 

competitive races would optimally provide for 

an array of challenges for truck, buggy, ATV, 

and motorcycle competitive races.

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 4 per year.

Locate and develop one large motorized staging 

and camping area for the following purposes:

meeting the high motorized recreation 

demand, 

parking, 

unloading OHVs, 

overnight camping, and

event operations.

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement 

Limit to 20 acres the area of exposed barren 

soil. Mark or delineate the perimeter with 

barriers to prevent expansion.

Manage recreational target shooting consistent 

with guidelines for target shooting in the 

Recreation discussion of the Management 

Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area section of this chapter. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.3.7.

Administrative Actions

Determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

and

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 

Develop a site management and interpretation 

plan for the Vulture City Cemetery.

2.6.2.2.3.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative E proposes no allocations to 

maintain wilderness characteristics for the 

Hassayampa MU.
Chapter 2

223

2.6.2.2.3.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative E throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-75. 

Within the Hassayampa Management Unit, 

allocate:

Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn 

Mind Road (1⁄2 mile to either side of the 

road‘s centerline) to VRM Class II, 

Hassayampa SRMA to VRM Class II 

except 

o San Domingo Wash RMZ to 

VRM Class III, 

o Vulture Mine RMZ to VRM 

Class III, 

o Stanton RMZ to VRM Class III, 

and

o Wickenburg Community RMZ 

to VRM Class II where desired 

recreation settings are semiprimitive motorized and semiprimitive non-motorized and 

VRM Class III where desired 

settings are Rural or Roaded 

Natural. 

Utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV. 

Areas not listed above, VRM 

classes would be as portrayed on Map 2-

75. 

2.6.2.2.3.8 Mineral Resources

Management

Alternative E proposes no mineral withdrawals 

or closures within the Hassayampa MU. 

2.6.2.2.3.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Hassayampa Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16). Until such time 

that final route designations are made, motorized 

and mechanized vehicles are restricted to 

currently inventoried routes. See Section 2.7.3.7 

for a more detailed description of limitations.

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.3.1.

SCRMAs and cultural resource sites allocated to 

Public Use are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.3.4.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.3.5.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

Chapter 3.

Mitigate vehicle routes within the Vulture 

Mountain ACEC (6,120 acres BLM) that 

conflict with maintaining wildlife values to 

ensure achieving the DFC. Mitigation measures 

include relocating routes, limiting season or 

time-of-day use, and closing routes.

Consider building new routes only when needed 

to meet natural resource objectives. Maintain the 

Vulture Peak Trail to the current condition and 

standards.

The Hassayampa SRMA (181,910 acres 

BLM) would include four Recreation 

Management Zones. These are the Stanton 

RMZ, the Wickenburg Community RMZ, the 

San Domingo Wash RMZ, and the Vulture Mine 

RMZ. All the RMZs have motorized and nonmotorized use prescriptions, which have been 

discussed in the Recreation sections of this plan.
Chapter 2

224

The Hassayampa SRMA would include a system 

of high-quality equestrian and motorized trails 

surrounding Wickenburg. Travel management 

prescriptions include: develop and designate a 

comprehensive motorized and non-motorized 

trail system; identify, analyze, build, and 

designate new single- and multi-use hiking, 

equestrian, and vehicle routes; and link trails to 

local trail systems and communities. New 

proposed routes for the route system would 

include a motorized and non-motorized 

Wickenburg-Lake Pleasant Regional Park-Black 

Canyon Trail corridor. BLM will complete a 

detailed, comprehensive, site-specific inventory

and designation of all existing and proposed 

motorized routes and non-motorized trails on 

public land in the SRMA within three years of 

plan approval.

The Wickenburg Community RMZ (72,040 

acres BLM) would include the Red Top Trail 

System and "The Box" (Map 2-91). Develop 

a system of high-quality equestrian and hiking 

trails surround Wickenburg. Maintain and 

upgrade the Vulture Peak Trail by rerouting or 

re-engineering eroded trail segments. Complete 

a comprehensive strategy and trails plan to select 

and develop new single- and multi-use hiking, 

equestrian, and OHV trails for all lands in the 

RMZ.

The Stanton RMZ (6,050 acres BLM) would 

offer a diverse network of motorized vehicle 

routes for a range of OHV experiences and 

challenges, compatible with the existing nonmotorized trails in the RMZ. No more than two 

competitive races may occur in this RMZ based 

on trail sustainability. Sustainability 

determination will consider environmental 

factors (including, but not limited to: soil 

erosion, wildlife or cultural resource conflicts, 

conflicts with grazing management, air quality) 

as well as social concerns (including, but not 

limited to: noise, conflict with casual uses or 

other organized events, conflicts with other 

recreation activities such as hunting.)

Establish the Red Top Trail System to provide 

high-quality non-motorized trail network 

experiences. Allow for motorized uses where 

appropriate to avoid conflicting uses. Identify, 

analyze, build, and designate new trails less than 

52 inches wide, as needed, for resource 

protection, visitor safety, or meeting 

management objectives. Identify, analyze, build, 

and designate an ATV and motorcycle trail 

network in the Red Top Trail area. Use existing 

designated motorized vehicle routes and 

create new trails less than 52 inches wide, if 

needed, to meet management objectives.

"The Box" area would be designed to provide 

a high-quality non-motorized recreation use 

experience. Develop passenger car access to 

these sites. Designate access routes for varied 

uses such as hiking and horseback riding. 

Identify, analyze, build, and designate fourwheel drive, jeep, ATV, sand rail, and dirt bike 

trails with suitable use areas and limitations.

Close areas where improper vehicle activity 

is occurring.

The San Domingo Wash RMZ (16,040 acres 

BLM) would offer a Sonoran Desert wash and 

upland environment experience suitable for an 

array of motorized and non-motorized uses.

Single and two-track motorized routes would

provide an array of challenges for ATV, and 

motorcycle competitive races. No more than 2 

competitive races may occur in this area based 

on trail sustainability.

The Vulture Mine RMZ (30,100 acres 

BLM) would offer intensive motorized single 

and two-track routes for general motorized 

recreation use, commercial use, organized OHV 

events and competitive races. Single- and twotrack motorized routes to would provide an array 

of challenges for truck, buggy, ATV, and 

motorcycle competitive races. No more than 4 

competitive races may take place in area based 

on trail sustainability.

Consider development of hard-surfaced walking 

trails at selected cultural sites within the 

Wickenburg/Vulture SCRMA (124,000 acres 

BLM) and the Weaver/Octave SCRMA (2,730 

acres BLM) where needed for for interpretation, 

education, and visitation to prehistoric and 

historic sites.
Chapter 2

225

Administrative Actions

Develop a Wickenburg RMZ Travel and Public 

Access Plan.

Revise the existing Red Top Trail Project Plan, 

in cooperation with the local community and 

interested user groups, to expand the nonmotorized Red Top Trail network.

2.6.2.2.4 Harquahala 

Management Unit

The Harquahala is bounded on the east by the 

Hassayampa MU and extends west to 

the Hassayampa Field Office boundary near the 

town of Wenden. However, the MU 

would include private and State land south to 

Interstate 10. The northern boundary still 

follows the BLM's property line south of State 

Route 60, which goes west of Wickenburg 

through Aguila and Wenden (Map 2-86). The 

Harquahala MU contains the following land: 

420,730 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

48,410 acres of Arizona State land, and

29,616 acres of private land. 

2.6.2.2.4.1 Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Harquahala Mountains ACEC (74,950 acres 

BLM).

Relevance

The area constitutes a rare intact, mountaintop 

vegetation community surrounded by low desert. 

As the highest topographic feature in the region, 

the mountains contain a biologically diverse 

system, in stark contrast to the surrounding 

landscape. The mountain range supports a 

diverse sky island ecosystem, with many species 

not found in the surrounding Sonoran Desert. 

The mountains are a natural area with few 

noticeable human intrusions in a primitive 

landscape setting. The mountain range is high 

enough that, from the summit, mountains in 

Mexico are visible during very clear air 

conditions. Conversely, the mountain range is a 

dominant landscape feature for travelers in many 

areas of southwest Arizona, visible from major 

highways (such as Interstate 10 and US 

Highway 60) as much as a hundred miles away.

Importance

The ACEC designation would protect unique 

biological resources and significant cultural 

resources, including prehistoric and historic 

sites. This area also is of cultural importance to 

the Yavapai Tribe, as it was a major area of 

settlement for the Western Yavapai groups. 

The biological richness of the Harquahala 

Mountains is unique within southwest Arizona. 

The Harquahala Mountains and surrounding 

bajadas provide important wildlife habitat to a 

diverse array of species. The area is an 

ecoregional conservation site with important 

biodiversity values.

The ACEC contains the Harquahala Mountain 

Observatory, which is within a National Register 

of Historic Places district. The historic 

Harquahala Peak Pack Trail, Ellison's Camp, 

and other sites are components of the historic 

district. The area also includes many wellpreserved prehistoric sites along with historic 

ranching and mining sites. Some archaeological 

sites may be related to the use of the mountain 

range by a regional group of the Western 

Yavapai tribe. The ACEC will safeguard 

important and unfragmented wildlife habitat.

Desired Future Condition

Protect sensitive resources discussed in the 

statements of relevance and importance.

Minimize the visual intrusion of any 

management activity so as to retain the 

outstanding scenic quality and natural landscape 

appearance consistent with VRM Class II 

standards.

Achieve long-term conservation of scenic, 

natural resource, and cultural values.
Chapter 2

226

Preserve outstanding opportunities for highquality hiking, backpacking, hunting, wildlife 

observation, and cultural study prospects.

Permit vehicle access only on designated routes.

Maintain the plant diversity and richness of the 

chaparral, riparian/wetland, and Sonoran Desert 

scrub vegetation communities.

Achieve and maintain unfragmented wildlife 

habitat, which provides adequate forage, cover, 

and access to water for healthy wildlife 

populations. 

Maintain the existing interpretive facilities in 

good condition to promote public education and 

appreciation of the area‘s cultural traditions and 

history. Allocate selected sites to public use to 

support public education in conjunction with 

heritage tourism along the existing back-country 

byway and hiking trails. 

Management Actions

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated 

routes.

Continue to manage the existing Harquahala 

Mountain Back Country Byway as described in 

Section 2.7.3.1.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.4.7.

Mitigate surface disturbance inconsistent with 

achieving the DFC.

Unless new vehicle routes and fences are needed 

to mitigate resource conflicts and achieve DFC, 

prohibit such construction.

In the Inner Basin, which encompasses a valley 

just below and east of the summit, prohibit 

grazing improvements that encourage 

concentrated livestock use.

Approve improvements in this area if they

are needed to meet resource objectives,

would help achieve DFC, and

conform to the standards and objectives 

for the area.

Restore and protect all spring sources and the 

wildlife habitat values of springs.

Acquire from willing parties State and private 

lands containing resource values that are 

consistent with the relevance and importance of 

the ACEC.

Identify, monitor, and protect important cultural 

resources.

Maintain the Harquahala Observatory historical 

site and its interpretive facilities to current 

standards and conditions.

Select specific cultural sites for public use by 

considering the following factors:

presence of aboveground features of interest 

to the public and amenable to interpretive 

development,

accessibility to communities, travel routes, 

and recreation trails,

site condition and the feasibility of 

stabilizing selected areas or features to 

withstand visitation,

visitor safety,

compatibility with other land uses and site 

values, such as traditional use by Native 

Americans,

feasibility of regular inspections by BLM's 

staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive and 

educational projects.

Implement the following actions:

build visitor facilities,

install signs along routes and trails to 

direct visitors to interpreted sites,

build hardened walking trails,

install interpretive signs and register 

boxes, and

prepare brochures and related 

educational materials or programs.
Chapter 2

227

Implement actions to stabilize, repair, and 

maintain selected cultural sites in a condition 

that preserves their value to scientific or public 

uses as needed. Regularly monitor the condition 

of these sites for possible remedial action.

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours if they are conducted with protective 

stipulations, in accordance with BLM's 

regulations and, where required, special SRPs.

Administrative Actions

The BLM's recreation program would help 

develop sites for public use. Cooperate with 

agencies, tribes, and local communities in 

supporting heritage tourism programs that 

benefit local economies. Develop historic 

properties for heritage tourism to contribute to 

their long-term preservation and productive use.

Black Butte ACEC (8,260 acres BLM)

Relevance

The area contains the Vulture obsidian source, 

which was a major source of "Apache tears" 

used to make stone tools during prehistoric 

times. The cliffs at the crest of Black Butte are 

significant habitat features used by raptor 

species and are a pristine, scenic landmark. 

These cliffs are essential to maintaining the 

biological diversity of the surrounding area.

Importance

Archaeologists recognize the Vulture obsidian 

source as one of the major sources of a valuable 

trade commodity in prehistoric Arizona. 

Obsidian (volcanic glass) was used widely in 

making stone tools. Nodules of Vulture obsidian 

have a distinctive chemical composition that 

allows archaeologists to map changes in its 

distribution, use, and trade by prehistoric 

peoples. Vulture obsidian has been traced to 

prehistoric sites within at least a 100-mile radius 

of Black Butte.

The value of the cliffs for nesting raptors is 

significant for a large area. Nesting raptors are 

sensitive to construction-related human 

activities. If these cliffs are not protected from 

these activities, cliff-nesting raptors would 

disappear from much of the surrounding area.

Desired Future Condition

Manage the area to emphasize protecting the 

sensitive resources discussed in the statements 

of relevance and importance. Maintain current 

natural conditions and open space. Minimize the 

visual intrusion of any management activity so 

as to preserve the outstanding scenic quality and 

natural landscape appearance.

Manage the area surrounding Black Butte and 

Jackrabbit Wash to: 

preserve good non-motorized recreation 

opportunities and settings,

conserve scenic volcanic landscapes,

Maintain a semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation setting. 

Retain Black Butte‘s cultural significance as an 

important source of material for prehistoric tool 

production. Sustain important raptor nesting 

habitat in the central Black Butte cliffs area. 

Restore, enhance, and maintain wildlife and 

plant diversity and species richness of this 

Sonoran Desert vegetation community. Set as 

ACEC priorities conserving vegetation 

communities and managing for healthy wildlife 

populations.

Management Actions

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.4.7.

Mitigate surface disturbance that conflicts with 

the protection of biological and cultural 

resources for which the ACEC is designated.

Prohibit building new recreation sites that 

conflict with raptor management or cultural 

prescriptions. Build non-motorized trails and 

recreation facilities, if needed, to ensure 

resource protection, protect wildlife habitat, or 

enhance recreation opportunities.
Chapter 2

228

Manage the ACEC to preserve the Vulture 

obsidian source, permit scientific study of it, and 

implement actions to restrict activities that 

threaten its integrity.

Prohibit rock climbing in the ACEC.

2.6.2.2.4.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

The land in the Harquahala 

MU proposed as suitable for disposal amounts to

3,528 acres (Map 2-78). This land 

has been selected in accordance with the 

resource management prescriptions in this land 

use plan as limited by criteria described 

in Section 2.7.1.2 Lands and Realty.

Communication Sites

The Harquahala Peak communication site is the 

only such designated site within this MU.

Utility and Transportation Corridors (Map 2-

79)

Multiple-Purpose Corridors 

Shift the Central Arizona Project 

(CAP) corridor to the north, extending 

it one mile north from the southern 

CAP right-of-way boundary. 

Add a new 1-mile-wide corridor leg on 

the Meade-Phoenix corridor (partly in 

Harquahala MU, partly in Hassayampa 

MU). 

Transportation Corridors 

Transportation corridors are discussed in Section

2.6.2.1.1.

2.6.2.2.4.3 Biological Resources

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

Land Use Allocation

Belmont/Big Horn Mountains Wildlife Habitat 

Area (140,310 acres BLM) 

Desired Future Condition 

Restore, enhance, and maintain the wildlife, 

plant diversity, and species richness of the 

Sonoran Desert scrub vegetation community.

Unfragmented wildlife habitat provides adequate 

forage, cover, and access to water for healthy 

wildlife populations. Conserving and managing 

for healthy wildlife populations are priorities in 

managing the area.

Management Actions

Modify existing fences and incorporate design 

features in new fences to ensure free movement 

of mule deer and bighorn sheep.

Mitigate vehicle routes that conflict with 

maintaining wildlife habitat values to ensure 

achieving DFC. Mitigation includes the 

following:

relocating route segments, 

building wildlife passes, 

limiting seasonal or time-of-day 

use, and

closing routes. 

Acquire State and private lands within the WHA 

from willing sellers.

Mitigate the impact of future vehicle route 

improvements on priority wildlife species, 

especially desert bighorn sheep and desert 

tortoise to ensure achieving DFC.

Mitigate recreation use and development to 

minimize impacts on priority wildlife species to 

ensure achieving DFC.
Chapter 2

229

2.6.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources

Nearly the entire area of the Harquahala 

SCRMA is included within the Harquahala 

Mountains ACEC. Management of cultural 

resources in the Harquahala SCRMA within the 

Harquahala Mountains ACEC can be found in 

Section 2.6.2.2.4.1. The historic Harquahala 

Peak Smithsonian Observatory and the 

Harquahala Peak Pack Trail would be allocated 

to public use. Allocate other sites for public use 

and interpretive development consistent with 

management actions described for the 

Harquahala Mountains ACEC.

Manage cultural resources to conform to 

prescriptions for the Harquahala 

Mountains ACEC. Acquire significant cultural 

sites on other State and private lands within the 

MU on a willing seller/willing buyer basis,

consistent with priorities in the Lands and Realty 

discussion of the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas section of Chapter 2.

2.6.2.2.4.5 Recreation 

Resources

Though the entire Harquahala MU would be 

allocated as an ERMA, the following recreation 

management would apply in addition to those 

actions described in the Recreation and Public 

Access - Travel and Transportation 

Planning discussions of the Management 

Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area:

Implementation Actions

Select, plan, and develop at least one staging and 

camping area to meet motorized and nonmotorized recreation demand. Have this 

area provide accommodation for the following:

parking, 

unloading OHVs and horses, 

overnight camping, and

large organized event operations.

Development may include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks,

picnic tables, 

hitching posts, 

troughs for water hauled to the site, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement.

Limit to 20 acres the area of exposed barren 

soil. Mark or delineate the perimeter with 

barriers to prevent expansion.

Develop at least one day-use area near or 

adjacent to lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics in the Belmont 

Mountains. The development would be 

designed for up to 50 vehicles with trailers to 

meet the non-motorized recreation demand. The 

facility would provide for parking, 

unloading horses, picnicking, and small special 

event operations. Development may include:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

hitching posts, 

loading ramp, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement.

Mark or delineate the perimeter of the Belmont 

Mountain day-use area to prevent expansion.

Limit to 5 acres the site's area of exposed barren 

soil.

2.6.2.2.4.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Within the Harquahala Management Unit, 

53,789 acres would be allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

89. 

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain and manage wilderness characteristics, 

open space, and wildlife habitat. Retain natural 

landscapes. Provide opportunities for solitude
Chapter 2

230

and outstanding primitive recreation 

opportunities in a remote setting. Preserve an 

array of scenic and special features. Restore, 

enhance, and maintain the wildlife/plant 

diversity and species richness of this Sonoran 

Desert scrub vegetation community. Wildlife 

populations and habitat are important aspects of 

the naturalness and will be actively managed.

Maintain important and unfragmented habitat for 

desert tortoises and desert bighorn sheep.

Management Actions

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes

Manage the recreation setting along designated 

routes for a semi-primitive motorized setting.

Manage areas away from designated motorized 

routes as semi-primitive non-motorized.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.4.7.

Prohibit building new fences, unless their 

construction helps to achieve the DFC.

Acquire State and private lands on a willing 

seller/willing buyer basis.

Prohibit building new recreation sites that would 

conflict with wildlife management, 

habitat, or movement, or would affect sensitive 

cultural or botanical resources. Build nonmotorized trails and recreation facilities only if 

needed for the following purposes:

to ensure resource protection, 

to protect wilderness characteristics, and 

to protect wildlife habitat 

2.6.2.2.4.7 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative E throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-75. 

Within the Harquahala Management Unit, 

allocate:

Harquahala Mountains ACEC, Black 

Butte ACEC, VRM Class II. 

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics VRM Class II 

and continue VRM Class I in designated 

wilderness. 

Utility corridors would be allocated to 

VRM Class III or IV.

The rest of the Management Unit would 

be allocated to VRM classes as 

portrayed on the above referenced map. 

2.6.2.2.4.8 Mineral Resource 

Management

Alternative E proposes no withdrawals or 

mining closures.

2.6.2.2.4.9 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Harquahala Management 

Unit (420,730 acres of BLM-administered 

lands) would be allocated as a limited use area, 

with motorized and mechanized vehicle 

uses limited to designated routes (Map 2-16). 

Motorized and Mechanized travel is limited to 

currently inventoried routes until final route 

designations are completed. See Section 2.7.3.7 

for a more detailed description of limitations.

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

ACECs are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.4.1.

WHAs are discussed in the Biological Resources 

Section 2.6.2.2.4.3.

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in Section

2.6.2.2.4.6.
Chapter 2

231

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Limit 

motorized vehicle use to designated routes 

within the Harquahala Mountains ACEC 

(74,950 acres BLM). Prohibit new vehicle 

routes unless needed to mitigate resource 

conflicts and achieve DFC. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

chapter 3.

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes 

within the Black Butte ACEC (8,260 acres 

BLM. Build non-motorized trails and recreation 

facilities within the Black Butte ACEC if 

needed, to ensure resource protection, protect 

wildlife habitat, or enhance recreation 

opportunities.

Mitigate vehicle routes within the Belmont/Big 

Horn Mountains WHA (140,310 acres BLM) by 

relocating route segments, building wildlife 

passes, limiting seasonal or time-of-day use, or 

closing routes that conflict with maintaining 

wildlife habitat values to ensure achieving DFC.

Coordinate the route system designation with the 

Lake Havasu Field Office for connectivity as 

outlined in Common to All Section 2.7.3.7.

Implementation Actions

BLM requires a standard evaluation process, 

supported by software and database and that is 

compatible with GIS functionality. Designation 

of a route network using a process described in 

Appendix D, or one similar, would be 

considered an implementation action. Route 

designation will be done within 5 years of RMP 

signing.

2.6.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management 

Unit

The Harcuvar MU encompasses the easternmost 

end of the Harcuvar Mountains within the PD's 

administrative area. Most of the Harcuvar 

Mountain range is administered by BLM's Lake 

Havasu Field Office. The Harcuvar MU is 

bounded on the west and north by the PD

boundary with the Lake Havasu Field Office, 

and on the east and south by the boundary 

between BLM and non-BLM-administered lands 

(Map 2-87). The MU contains the following 

land: 

53,200 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

6,280 acres of Arizona State land, and

3,360 acres of private land. 

The MU contains no proposed Special Area 

Designations. VRM classes for Alternative E

throughout the planning area would be allocated 

as described in Table 2-2 and as portrayed 

on Map 2-75. The entire Management Unit 

would be allocated as an Extensive Recreation 

Management Area and managed consistent with 

the discussion in Section 2.7.3.7 of the 

Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area portion of this 

Chapter. Connectivity of the route system with 

BLM Lake Havasu and Kingman Field Offices 

would be addressed consistent with the long 

distance route network discussions under 

Common to All Section 2.7.3.7. 

No allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Harcuvar MU.

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 
Chapter 2

232

2.6.2.2.6 Upper Agua Fria River 

Basin Management Unit

The Upper Agua Fria River Basin MU is 

sandwiched between Prescott National 

Forest's Bradshaw Mountains and Verde Ranger 

Districts. The MU stretches from Cordes Lakes 

in the south to the Town of Prescott Valley in 

the north (Map 2-88). The MU contains the 

following lands:

21,520 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, 

36,990 acres of Arizona State land, and

39,290 acres of private land. 

2.6.2.2.6.1 Special Area 

Designations

Nomination to National Recreation Trails 

System

Black Canyon Trail

Desired Future Conditions

Provide for the ever-increasing outdoor 

recreation needs of an expanding urban 

population to promote the preservation of, public 

access to, travel within, and enjoyment and 

appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and 

historic resources of the Black Canyon corridor.

A non-motorized National Recreation 

Trail should be established primarily, near urban 

areas; secondarily, within scenic areas and along 

historic travel routes of the area.

Management Actions

Consider and study the Black Canyon Trail for 

inclusion into the National Recreation Trail 

System, as described in the National Trails 

System Act of 2002 (P.L.90-543).

Issue a right-of-way for the non-motorized, 

mechanized use trail, of approximately 69 miles,

and ancillary trails and facilities to preserve 

public access and long-term character.

Acquire easements or rights-of-way on nonFederal lands if the trail or facilities are 

proposed for any of these lands.

Continue to work with the Black Canyon Trail 

Coalition and other public groups to build and 

maintain the trail. Engage motorized vehicle 

groups and other interested groups to build and 

maintain the parallel motorized route.

Recognize and accommodate longterm continuation of the trail and facilities in 

land tenure actions. Retain a 1/4-mile wide 

corridor (1/8 mile each side of the trail) along 

the trail and any ancillary facility for a 

permanent trail location. Ensure public access 

to the trail and related facilities through 

easements, rights-of-way, deed restrictions, or 

other suitable means. A motorized route will 

generally parallel the Black Canyon Trail to 

improve administrative access and public long 

distance travel using vehicles. 

2.6.2.2.6.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure

No lands would be disposed of within the Upper 

Agua Fria River Basin MU.

Communication Sites

No designated communication sites are proposed 

for this MU.

Utility and Transportation Corridors

Multiple-Purpose Corridors

Establish a new 1-mile-wide corridor leg 

centered on the El Paso Natural Gas Line. 

Transportation Corridors

Designate all State highway system routes as 

transportation corridors, including a new 1-milewide corridor along SR-69, a 1/2-mile on each 

side of the centerline.
Chapter 2

233

2.6.2.2.6.3 Biological Resources

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Section 2.7.1.4 -

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter and in Section 2.7.3.4 - Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

No biological allocations would be made within 

the Upper Agua Fria River Basin MU.

2.6.2.2.6.4 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Galena Gulch SCRMA (2,500 acres BLM).

Allocate to public use selected sites that are 

suitable for interpretive development, as 

described below under Administrative Actions.

Desired Future Condition 

Selected prehistoric and historic sites are 

interpreted for public education and visitation.

Interpretive projects are completed in a manner 

that monitors and protects sites while allowing 

for public use. For more information on public 

use of cultural resources, see Appendix E.

Management Actions

Build trails to link public use sites to the Black 

Canyon trail. Local site types potentially 

suitable for public use include the following:

prehistoric hilltop structures, 

rock art, 

mining camps, and

features of the historic Black Canyon 

sheep driveway. 

Develop historic properties for heritage 

tourism to contribute to their long-term 

preservation and productive use. 

Implement a combination of some or all of 

following and other actions at selected sites:

platforms, 

restrooms, 

picnic tables, 

benches, 

trash receptacles, 

signs along routes and trails to direct 

visitors to interpreted sites, 

hard-surfaced walking trails, 

interpretive signs and register boxes, 

and

brochures and related educational 

materials or programs.

Take actions to stabilize, repair, and maintain 

sites in good condition. Regularly monitor site 

conditions.

Authorize commercial and noncommercial 

group tours if they are conducted with protective 

stipulations in accordance with BLM 

regulations. Where required, issue SRPs. 

Administrative Actions

Select sites for public use by considering the 

following factors: 

presence of aboveground features of 

interest to the public and amenable to 

interpretive development. 

accessibility to communities, travel 

routes, and recreation trails. 

condition of the site and the feasibility 

of stabilizing selected areas or features 

to withstand visitation. 

visitor safety. 

compatibility with other land uses and 

site values, such as traditional use by 

Native Americans. 

feasibility of regular inspections by 

BLM's staff and volunteers, and

partnership opportunities for interpretive 

and educational projects. 

The BLM recreation program would participate 

in developing sites for public use.

BLM would cooperate with agencies, tribes, and 

local communities in supporting heritage 

tourism programs that benefit local 
Chapter 2

234

economies. Develop historic properties for 

heritage tourism to contribute to their long-term 

preservation and productive use.

2.6.2.2.6.5 Recreation 

Resources

Land Use Allocation

Upper Agua Fria River Basin SRMA (21,440 

acres BLM) 

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain the SRMA's natural landscape and 

open space. Offer visitors recreation 

opportunities, scenic views, access to the Black 

Canyon Trail, and other trail systems.

The open space character of the land is retained, 

maintaining natural landscapes and recreation 

opportunities for the future.

Emphasize rural, roaded-natural, and semiprimitive motorized recreation settings where 

suitable.

Management Actions

Locate, and develop new trails, parking, and 

staging areas, where suitable, for motorized and 

non-motorized use.

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.6.6 (Map 2-75).

Land Use Allocation

North Black Canyon Hiking and Equestrian 

Trails RMZ (3,210 acres BLM)

Desired Future Condition 

Complete the Black Canyon Trail north and east 

of Highway 69 to connect with trails in Prescott 

National Forest. Analyze, build and designate 

the trail to provide a non-motorized experience 

along the historic sheep driveway. Identify 

exact locations of the trail and facilities in 

conjunction with the Yavapai Trails Association 

and other interested citizens. Maintain rural 

roaded-natural and semi-primitive motorized 

settings as suitable. Consider and 

study the Black Canyon Trail for inclusion into 

the National Recreation Trail System, as 

described in the National Trails System Act 

of1968 (P.L.90-543).

Management Actions

Locate and develop staging, or camping areas 

near communities and vehicle access points to 

service the north Black Canyon Trail and 

adjoining public lands for the following 

purposes:

parking, 

unloading OHVs and horses, and

picnicking.

Development could include the following:

informational signs, 

kiosks, 

picnic tables, 

loading ramps, and

soil stabilization for dust abatement.

Limit to five acres the area of exposed barren 

soil on each site. Mark or delineate the 

perimeters to prevent expansion. 

Issue a right-of-way for the trail and facilities to 

preserve public access and protect the trail from 

incompatible land uses.

Acquire access easements or rights-of-way for 

non-Federal lands where the trail or facilities are 

proposed.

Recognize the trail and facilities in any land 

tenure actions. Retain a 1/4-mile corridor (1/8 

mile each side) along the trail. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.6.6.
Chapter 2

235

Evaluate the Black Canyon Trail for inclusion 

into the National Recreation Trail System, as 

described in the National Trails System Act of 

2002 (P.L.90-543).

Administrative Actions

Work with citizen volunteer groups to complete 

a comprehensive strategy and trails plan for 

selecting and developing new single- and multiuse hiking, equestrian, and OHV trails for all 

lands in the SRMA. Collaborate with the 

following entities: 

Arizona Game & Fish Department,

Prescott National Forest, 

Yavapai County, 

Yavapai County Trails Association, 

and land managers of other trails. 

Establish a citizens‘ working group to help with 

trail and facility sites, designs, and 

management. Develop a Black Canyon 

Trail management and partnership plan with 

community and citizen input in conjunction with 

the Black Canyon Trail Plan for the Black 

Canyon SRMA. Within one year of plan 

approval define the following:

proposed trail alignments, 

trailheads, 

linking trails, and

other alignments.

Complete this master plan within 2 years of plan 

approval.

2.6.2.2.6.6 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

VRM classes for Alternative E throughout the 

planning area would be allocated as described in 

Table 2-2 and as portrayed on Map 2-75. The 

entire Upper Agua Fria River Basin MU would 

be allocated to VRM Class III objectives.

2.6.2.2.6.7 Mineral Resource 

Management

Alternative E proposes no mineral withdrawals 

or closures within the MU. 

2.6.2.2.6.8 Travel Management

Land Use Allocation

The Upper Agua Fria River Basin Management 

Unit, 21,520 acres of BLM-managed lands, 

would be allocated as a limited use area, with 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16). Motorized and 

Mechanized travel is limited to currently 

inventoried routes until final route designations 

are completed. See Section 2.7.3.7 for a more 

detailed description of limitations. 

Other Resource Allocations with Travel 

Management Prescriptions

SCRMAs and cultural resource sites allocated to 

Public Use are discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.6.4.

SRMAs and other recreation allocations are 

discussed in Section 2.6.2.2.6.5.

Desired Future Conditions

Define, designate, implement, and monitor a 

designated and travel management network. The 

travel management network and associated 

recreation opportunities would be consistent 

with other resource management objectives for 

the area.

Management Actions

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. No cross-country motorized travel would 

be permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. Until route 

designation is completed, all vehicle travel is 

restricted to inventoried routes as shown in 

Chapter 3.
Chapter 2

236

The Upper Agua Fria River Basin SRMA 

(21,440 acres BLM) would offer visitors‘ access 

to the Black Canyon Trail and other trail 

systems. Locate, and develop new trails, 

where suitable, for motorized and non-motorized 

uses.

Locate a motorized route generally parallel to 

the Black Canyon Trail to support a long 

distance motor vehicle route network. 

Within the North Black Canyon Hiking and 

Equestrian Trails RMZ (3,210 acres BLM), 

locate and develop staging, or camping areas 

near communities and vehicle access points to 

service the north Black Canyon Trail. Issue 

a right-of-way for the trail and facilities to 

preserve public access and protect the trail from 

incompatible land uses. Acquire access 

easements or rights-of-way for nonFederal lands, where the trail or facilities are 

proposed. Recognize the trail and facilities in 

any land tenure actions. Retain a 1/4-mile 

corridor (1/8 mile each side) along the trail. 

Evaluate the Black Canyon Trail for inclusion 

into the National Recreation Trail System, as 

described in the National Trails System Act of 

2002 (P.L.90-543). Complete a new BCT this 

master plan within 2 years of plan approval.

Build trails to link cultural public use sites to 

the Black Canyon Trail. Trails could lead 

to suitable sites including prehistoric hilltop 

structures, rock art, mining camps, and 

features of the historic Black Canyon sheep 

driveway. 

Administrative Actions

Apply an evaluation process, similar 

to one described in Appendix D, to guide 

establishment of a designated public access and 

route system to support resource objectives 

consistent with Alternative B.

Develop a Travel Management Plan. This plan 

would implement the designated route system 

for the Management Unit.

2.7 Management 

Common to All Action 

Alternatives

Introduction

While certain planning components vary across 

the Alternatives, others apply to 

all Alternatives. Some components common to 

all Alternatives result from previous land use 

decisions determined still to be valid and carried 

forward into the revised plans. Others originate 

from new planning decisions made since 

adopting the pre-existing plans. The common 

actions that apply to both planning areas appear 

first; those that apply only to Agua Fria National 

Monument are presented second, and those that 

apply only to the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area are presented third.

Many scattered, isolated BLM-administered 

parcels are located outside the planning area 

boundaries (Map 1-2). These parcels are 

included in this plan as BLM is responsible for 

managing them. Some of the lands are managed 

under the Kingman RMP (BLM 1993a), whereas 

others are managed under the Phoenix RMP 

(BLM 1988a). They are difficult to manage 

because of their isolation and the small size of 

the individual parcels. As in the Kingman RMP

and the Phoenix RMP, BLM has elected to deal 

with these lands more generally than with lands 

inside the planning areas. Still, the scattered 

parcels are included in the land tenure decisions 

for each Alternative. The actions or components 

described below are common to all Action 

Alternatives.

2.7.1 Management Common 

to Both Planning Areas

2.7.1.1 Land Health Standards

In managing and implementing all resource 

programs, BLM must consider the Land Health 

Standards described in Arizona Standards for 
Chapter 2

237

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (Rangeland Management). The 

Land Health Standards were developed, 

pursuant to 43 CFR 4180, through a 

collaborative process involving BLM's staff and 

the Arizona Resource Advisory Council (RAC). 

The Land Health Standards were approved by 

the Secretary of the Interior in April 1997.

These standards have been developed 

to determine the characteristics of healthy 

ecosystems on public lands and management 

actions to promote them. When approved, the 

Land Health Standards became BLM Arizona 

policy, guiding the planning for and 

management of BLM-administered lands. The 

Land Health Standards, therefore, have been 

incorporated into both the Agua Fria National 

Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala RMPs.

Listed below are the standards that describe the 

conditions needed to encourage proper 

functioning of ecological processes and that 

have been adopted as the Land Health Standards 

applicable program wide to BLM Arizona.

Standard One: 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 One

Soil conditions support the proper functioning of 

hydrologic, energy, and nutrient cycles. Many 

factors interact to maintain stable soils and 

healthy soil conditions, including suitable 

amounts of vegetation cover, litter, and soil 

porosity and organic matter. Under proper 

functioning conditions, rates of soil loss and 

infiltration are consistent with the site's 

potential.

Ground cover in the form of plants, litter, or 

rock is present in pattern, kind, and amount 

sufficient to prevent accelerated erosion for the 

ecological site; or ground cover is increasing as 

determined by monitoring over an established 

period of time.

Signs of accelerated erosion are minimal or 

diminishing for the ecological site as determined 

by monitoring over an established period of 

time.

As indicated by such factors as:

ground cover, 

litter, 

live vegetation (e.g., grass, shrubs, trees) 

amount and type, 

rock , 

signs of erosion, 

flow pattern, 

gullies, and

rills and plant pedestaling. 

Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable):

None.

Standard Two: Riparian-Wetland Sites

Riparian-wetland areas are in properly 

functioning condition.

Criteria for Meeting Standard Two

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 the stream energy of high-water flows.

Riparian-wetland functioning condition 

assessments are based on examination of 

hydrologic, vegetation, soil and erosiondeposition factors. BLM has developed a 

standard checklist to address these factors and 

make functional assessments. Riparian-wetland 

areas are functioning properly as shown by the 

results of applying the appropriate checklist.

The checklist for riparian areas is in Technical 

Reference 1737-9, Process for Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition (BLM 1993d). The 

checklist for wetlands is in Technical Reference 

1737-11, Process for Assessing Proper 
Chapter 2

238

Functioning Condition for Lentic RiparianWetland Areas (BLM 1994c).

As indicated by such factors as the following:

gradient, 

width/depth ratio, 

channel roughness and sinuosity of 

stream channel, 

bank stabilization, 

reduced erosion, 

captured sediment, 

ground water recharge, and

dissipation of energy by vegetation. 

Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable):

Dirt tanks, wells, and other water 

facilities built or placed at a location to 

provide water for livestock or wildlife 

and not determined through local 

planning to provide for riparian or 

wetland habitat are exempt. 

Water impoundments permitted for 

construction, mining, or other similar 

activities are exempt. 

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions

Productive, diverse upland and riparian-wetland 

plant communities of native species exist and are 

maintained.

Criteria for Meeting Standard Three

Upland and riparian-wetland plant communities 

meet DPC 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 (TGA); FLPMA; Endangered 

Species Act (ESA); Clean Water Act (CWA); 

and suitable laws, regulations, and policies.

DPC objectives will be developed to assure that 

soil conditions and ecosystem function described 

in Standards 1 and 2 are met. These 

objectives detail a site-specific plant community, 

which when obtained, will assure rangeland 

health; State water quality standards; and habitat 

for endangered, threatened, and sensitive 

species. Thus, DPC objectives will be used as 

an indicator of ecosystem function and 

rangeland health.

As indicated by such factors as the following:

composition, 

structure, and

distribution. 

Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable):

Ecological sites or stream reaches on which a 

change in existing vegetation is physically, 

biologically, or economically impractical are 

exempt.

2.7.1.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustment

Management Actions

Land tenure decisions determine which 

lands will be retained, which will be proposed 

for disposal, and which will be proposed for 

acquisition. These decisions must achieve the 

goals, standards, and objectives in the land use 

plan.

Lands found to be potentially suitable for 

disposal by sale or exchange in this land use 

plan meet the criteria in Sections 203 and 206 of 

the FLPMA of 1976, and other laws and 

regulations.

For land tenure adjustments, BLM prioritizes 

acquiring lands that contain habitat recognized 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

as needed for the recovery of federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. 

BLM does not dispose of land:

occupied by species that are listed or 

proposed to be listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA, 
Chapter 2

239

with designated or proposed critical 

habitat for a listed or 

proposed threatened or 

endangered species,

supporting listed or proposed threatened 

or endangered species if such transfer 

would conflict with recovery needs and 

objectives or would likely impede the 

recovery of the listed or proposed 

species, and/or

supporting Federal candidate species if 

such action would contribute to the need 

to list the species as threatened or 

endangered.

Exceptions to the above may 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. 

Maintain, obtain, and secure access rights to 

all BLM-administered lands to meet BLM 

goals and objectives. This action is 

accomplished by requiring reciprocal grants 

(where needed) when granting rights-of-way 

across BLM-administered lands and pursuing 

land disposal actions. 

Issue right-of-way reservations to BLM on 

existing designated routes that are needed for 

implementing the RMP.

In determining whether to adjust land tenure 

(including land exchange, purchase, sale, and 

donation), consider the following:

Evaluate and balance all resource 

requirements and consolidate land 

ownership to achieve management 

efficiency and reduced costs of 

administration, thereby improving 

Federal land management. 

Evaluate the effects of land adjustments 

on sensitive species habitat. Avoid land 

adjustments that could result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or a loss of 

population viability for sensitive 

species.

Acquire land that contains 

resources determined to be important in 

contributing toward BLM resource 

management goals and objectives, when 

these resources are threatened by land 

use change or when management may 

be enhanced by public ownership.

Resources so identified may include 

historical or heritage resources, 

outstanding scenic values, critical 

ecosystems, or potential recreation 

opportunities. 

Acquire land that reduces conflicts 

between public and private landowner 

objectives. 

Evaluate the long-term effects of 

adjustments in jurisdiction near urban 

and rural communities on community 

economic and social stability and 

environmental sustainability. Work 

with a diverse network of residents, user 

groups, and governments to determine if

land tenure adjustments could enhance

both local communities and 

environmental health. 

Land Use Allocations

Transportation Corridors

A designated transportation corridor means a 

designated parcel of land with specific 

boundaries identified by law, Secretarial Order, 

the land-use planning process, or other 

management decision, as being a proposed

location for one or more transportation rights-ofway and other compatible facilities. The 

designated transportation corridor may be 

suitable to accommodate more than one type of 

right-of-way use or facility or one or more rightof-way uses or facilities which are similar, 

identical, or compatible.

Title V, Section 503 of [43 U.S.C. 1763] 

provides the guidelines in which transportation 

corridors will be identified and designated. Any 

existing transportation corridor may be 
Chapter 2

240

designated as a transportation corridor without 

further review.

A corridor differs from a right-of-way in that a 

right-of-way authorizes a holder to use or 

occupy public lands under a grant, and is 

specific in its location. A transportation 

corridor will be identified by law, Secretarial 

Order, the land-use planning process, or other 

management decision, and is general in location 

and is designated to accommodate one or more 

rights-of-way. 

Facilities significant enough to be the basis for 

corridor designation are the following: 

natural gas and other pipelines at least 

10 inches in diameter, 

electric transmission facilities 

accommodating 115 kV lines or greater 

voltage , and 

significant canals delivering water to 

urban areas. 

Management Actions

Route major utility systems through designated 

corridors. Encourage new rights-of-way 

within designated corridors to promote the 

maximum use of existing routes. Encourage 

joint use whenever possible.

Collocate smaller utility lines needed for local 

service near corridors or within a corridor unless 

doing so would limit the opportunity to 

collocate other major utility lines in the corridor.

Whenever possible, promote energy transfer 

efficiency and support alternative energy 

sources, such as the use of photovoltaic cells 

(solar energy) and wind power.

Whenever possible, design or route utility 

transmission lines to minimize adverse visual 

impacts to the surrounding lands and vistas.

Designate BLM utility corridors consistent with 

authorities granted under the following:

FLPMA Title V, Sections 501-511 (43 

USC 1761-1771), 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1928 (CFR 

2880), and 

BLM Right-of-Way Manual, Sections 

2801.11 and 2801.12. 

Administrative Actions

BLM will continue to cooperate as a partner 

(with the Forest Service, Arizona Public Service, 

and Salt River Project, in Arizona) in the 

Western Utility Group, whose mission is to 

facilitate an exchange of information and 

coordinate planning between Federal agencies 

and utility providers throughout the western 

United States.

Land Use Allocation

Communication Sites 

Management Actions

BLM planning related to communication 

infrastructure must, in accordance with the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, help facilitate 

implementing wireless telephone systems, in 

compliance with existing law, by making 

Federal lands and facilities available for 

communication sites.

Accept applications for communication sites on 

a case-by-case basis and in accordance with the 

resource management prescriptions in this land

use plan.

Consider communication site applications on 

lands that have been identified for disposal on a 

case by case basis. If an application is approved 

and the lands are subsequently exchanged or 

sold, reserve the communication site, subject to 

valid existing rights. Retain and make subject to 

valid existing rights previously designated 

communication sites. On lands that have been 

acquired or identified for retention, limit 

communication site development to previously 

designated sites. Develop communication site 

plans for all designated sites.
Chapter 2

241

Design communication sites following 

guidelines developed by the USFWS to 

minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Administrative Actions

As suitable, coordinate communication-related 

planning with the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC).

Land Use Allocation

Land Use Authorizations

Management Actions

Continue to issue land use authorizations (rightsof-way, leases, permits, easements) on a caseby-case basis and in accordance with resource 

management prescriptions in this land use plan.

Prohibit apiary (bee keeping) permits within 1/4 

mile of facilities such as the following:

high-use recreation areas such as 

campgrounds, trailheads, and staging 

areas, 

designated non-motorized trails,

areas or routes with permitted recreation 

activities, and

active scientific and research areas. 

Land Use Allocation

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act

Management Actions

Under the R&PP Act, accept applications from 

State and local governments and non-profit 

organizations on a case-by-case basis and in 

accordance with resource management 

prescriptions in this land use plan.

Land Use Allocation

Public Land Withdrawals and Classifications

Management Actions

Consider public land withdrawals and 

classifications on a case-by-case basis and in 

accordance with resource management 

prescriptions in the land use plans. Actions 

prohibited by the terms of the withdrawal or 

classification remain in effect until such 

withdrawals are revoked or classifications 

terminated.

2.7.1.3 Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Implementing the Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (Land Health Standards) (BLM 

1997a) would meet the requirement for soils to 

support proper functioning of hydrologic, 

energy, and nutrient cycles.

Identify, quantify, and secure legal entitlement 

to all existing water sources on the public lands 

and seek to acquire water rights, when possible, 

to ensure water availability to meet multipleresource needs. Assert Federal reserved water 

rights, where suitable, in Agua Fria National 

Monument and the five wilderness areas to 

secure water for the purposes of the reservations.

Monitor and protect water quality to meet 

Federal and State standards. Ensure that the 

water needs of flora and fauna are met.

Ensure that all land tenure decisions are 

reviewed for their impacts to water resources, 

including protection of instream flows.

2.7.1.4 Biological Resources

Land Use Allocation

Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat

Desired Future Conditions - Desert Tortoise

Desert tortoise habitat, by habitat category, will 

be managed to achieve the following desired 

conditions:
Chapter 2

242

Category I - Maintain stable, viable 

populations and protect existing tortoise 

habitat values and increase populations 

where possible, 

Category II - Maintain stable, viable 

populations and halt further declines in 

tortoise habitat values, and

Category III - Limit tortoise habitat and 

population declines to the extent 

possible through mitigation. 

Categories I and II desert tortoise habitat will be 

managed to retain all natural 

sheltersites (boulders or caliche caves or similar 

features used by tortoises for sheltering) and be 

unfragmented.

Vegetation will consist of at least 5 

percent native perennial grasses, at least 10 

percent native perennial forbs or subshrubs, at 

least 30 percent native trees and cacti, by dry 

weight, as limited by the potential of the 

ecological site as described by the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

ecological site guides.

Management Actions - Desert Tortoise

Standardize desert tortoise management 

throughout its habitat. Management will be 

consistent with the following documents:

Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on 

Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan (BLM 

1988b). 

Strategy for Desert Tortoise Habitat 

Management on Public Lands in 

Arizona, Instruction Memorandum No. 

AZ-91-16 (BLM 1990a) 

Strategy for Desert Tortoise Habitat 

Management on Public Lands in 

Arizona: New Guidance on 

Compensation for the Desert Tortoise, 

Instruction Memorandum No. AZ-92-46 

(BLM 1992), and

Supplemental Guidance for Desert 

Tortoise Compensation, Instruction 

Memorandum No. AZ-99-008 (BLM 

1999). 

Desert tortoise habitat will be managed 

according to the categories shown on Map 2-92.

Habitat management categories and boundaries 

will be revised as new population information 

becomes available. The criteria that will be used 

in revising categories and boundaries are those 

in the 1988 Rangewide Plan (BLM 1988b).

The criteria for Category I tortoise habitat areas 

are the following:

Habitat areas are essential to 

maintenance of large, viable 

populations. 

Conflicts are resolvable.

Populations are medium to high density 

or low density contiguous with medium 

or high density. 

Populations are increasing, stable, or 

decreasing. 

The criteria for Category II tortoise habitat areas 

are the following:

Habitat areas may be essential to 

maintenance of viable populations. 

Most conflicts are resolvable. 

Populations are medium to high density 

or low density contiguous with medium 

or high density. 

Populations are stable, or decreasing. 

Category III tortoise habitat areas are the 

following:

Habitat areas are not essential to 

maintenance of viable populations. 

Most conflicts are not resolvable. 

Populations are low to medium density 

not contiguous with medium or high 

density. 

Populations are stable or decreasing. 

No net loss will occur in the quality or quantity 

of Category I and II desert tortoise habitat to the 

extent practicable. BLM will address and 

include mitigation measures in decision 

documents to offset the loss of quality or 

quantity of Category I, II, and III tortoise 

habitats.
Chapter 2

243

Compensation may be required to mitigate 

residual impacts from authorized actions.

Evaluate on a case-by-case basis all proposed 

activities, including the following, for impacts to 

desert tortoise population or habitats:

requests for rights-of-way, 

easements, 

withdrawals, 

other land tenure actions, 

range improvements, 

wildlife habitat projects, 

mineral material sales, and

commercial and organized group SRP 

applications. 

Mitigation for adverse impacts is permissible to 

achieve no net loss in quantity or quality of 

desert tortoise habitat.

In Category I and II tortoise habitats, all 

motorized competitive races will be prohibited 

from March 31 through October 15. All other 

use requests during this time will be reviewed on 

a case-by-case basis and may be denied or 

adjusted to avoid conflict with tortoise activity 

and habitat. Mitigation for conflicts will be 

permissible to achieve no net loss in quantity or 

quality of desert tortoise habitat.

All mining plans of operations will be assessed 

for impacts to desert tortoise habitat on a caseby-case basis. Adverse impacts to desert tortoise 

would be mitigated to the extent allowable in the 

3809 regulations.

Administrative Actions - Desert Tortoise

Maintain and develop a proactive public 

education program on the desert tortoise and its 

habitat requirements, including participation in 

public events with tortoise habitat information. 

Update existing tortoise brochure every five

years or as needed.

Continue to work with and support other 

agencies and public entities in desert tortoise 

conservation.

Management Actions - Priority Species and 

Priority Habitats

Emphasize and give priority to managing 

priority species and priority habitats in the event 

of conflicts between resource management 

objectives. Priority species include the 

following:

game species, 

special status species, 

birds of conservation concern, and

raptors. 

See Appendix H for a complete list of priority 

species.

Priority habitats include areas allocated as 

WHAs (pronghorn fawning habitat, pronghorn 

movement corridors, and bighorn sheep habitat), 

ACECs, riparian areas, springs, bat roosts, and 

desert tortoise habitat.

Reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental 

stockings (augmentations) of wildlife 

populations will be carried out in collaboration 

with AGFD or the USFWS for the following 

purposes:

to maintain current populations, 

distributions, and genetic diversity, 

to conserve or recover threatened or 

endangered species, and

to restore or enhance native wildlife 

species diversity and distribution. 

Species that may be reintroduced, transplanted, 

or augmented include but are not limited to 

pronghorn; desert bighorn sheep; mule deer; 

desert tortoise; beavers; lowland leopard frogs; 

Mexican garter snakes; and native fishes like 

spikedace, Gila chub, Gila topminnow, desert 

pupfish, longfin dace, speckled dace, and desert 

sucker.

Management Actions - Threatened or 

Endangered Species

The actions described below implement the 

relevant Terms and Conditions and Conservation 
Chapter 2

244

Recommendations contained in the following 

Biological Opinions and Conference Opinion:

[2-21-88-F-167] The Phoenix Resource 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

[2-21-96-F-421] The Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan (1983), 

and Lower Gila North Grazing EIS 

(1982). 

[2-21-96-F-422] The Eastern Arizona 

Grazing EIS, Phoenix District Portion. 

[2-21-99-F-031] Reintroduction of Gila 

Topminnow and Desert Pupfish into

Three Tributaries of the Agua Fria 

River. 

[2-21-03-C-409] Existing Phoenix 

Resource Management Plan for the 

Agua Fria National Monument. 

[2-21-03-F-210] BLM Arizona 

Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment 

for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality 

Management. 

Acquisition criteria for non-Federal lands will

include the potential

to enhance the conserving and managing 

of threatened or endangered species 

habitat, riparian habitat, desert tortoise 

habitat, key big game habitat and

to improve the overall manageability of 

wildlife habitat. 

BLM will not transfer from Federal ownership 

the following:

designated or proposed critical habitat 

for a listed or proposed threatened or 

endangered species, 

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, and 

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.

Wildlife and prescribed fire management will 

incorporate the T/E Species Conservation 

Measures described in Appendix P which 

resulted from the BLM Arizona Statewide Land 

Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air 

Quality Management (BO #2-21-03-F-210).

Desired Future Condition - Gila Topminnow, 

Gila Chub and Desert Pupfish

All biologically suitable perennial waters on 

public lands in the planning areas will be 

occupied by thriving populations of Gila 

topminnow, Gila chub, and desert pupfish.

Management Actions - Gila Topminnow, Gila 

Chub and Desert Pupfish 

In cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, re-establish Gila topminnow, Gila chub 

and desert pupfish into suitable habitat sites 

throughout the planning area.

Stream bank alteration due to recreation 

activities and livestock grazing in areas occupied 

by Gila topminnow, Gila chub, and desert 

pupfish will be limited to 25 percent annually.

Domestic livestock utilization of native riparian 

trees seedlings along streams occupied by Gila 

chub, Gila topminnow, and desert pupfish will

be limited to 30 percent of the apical stems per 

growing season.

Fuels treatments on watersheds for habitat 

occupied by Gila topminnow, Gila chub, and 

desert pupfish will be limited to no more 

than 1/2 the watershed in any 2-year period.
Chapter 2

245

Administrative Actions - Gila Topminnow, Gila 

Chub and Desert Pupfish 

In coordination with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, monitor all Gila topminnow, Gila 

chub and desert pupfish populations annually.

Monitor for mortality of Gila topminnow, Gila 

chub and desert pupfish populations following 

significant runoff events within a year of treating 

the watershed with prescribed burns.

All monitoring results will be shared with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually.

BLM will coordinate all fire suppression actions 

in watersheds occupied by Gila topminnow, 

desert pupfish and Gila chub with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS). If incidental take 

of these species is likely to occur due to 

suppression actions, BLM will cooperate with 

appropriate agencies to collect and salvage fish, 

if collection and salvage operations can be 

accomplished safely. BLM will renovate/restore 

the population site(s) and aid in the reestablishment of the species into the original 

site(s). If repatriation is not possible due to 

extreme effects at the site, BLM will coordinate 

with the FWS to locate or restore a substitute 

site. Once conditions are suitable for the fish or 

a substitute site has been selected, the salvaged 

fish shall be reintroduced. BLM shall 

coordinate the salvage and release with the FWS 

and AGFD.

The BLM will monitor the effects of fire 

suppression actions on Gila topminnow, desert 

pupfish and Gila chub using approved protocols. 

Where fire suppression actions may have 

resulted in fish mortality, the BLM will 

investigate fire suppression related fish mortality 

and determine if there have been measurable 

reductions in abundance from that previously 

determined by status reviews. The BLM will 

monitor post-fire levels of sediment, debris, and 

fire-fighting chemicals and water quality at Gila 

topminnow, desert pupfish and Gila chub sites to 

ensure the habitat remains capable of supporting 

these fish. Water quality data will include 

temperature, pH (acidity), dissolved oxygen, 

total dissolved solids, and turbidity. This 

monitoring will occur as soon as practicable 

after the fire and will be coordinated with FWS.

BLM will provide a brief report of monitoring 

results to the FWS by February of each year 

following monitoring efforts along with the 

Wildfire Suppression Documentation forms 

which will contain the data agreed upon (see 

FWS File # 02-21-03-F-0210).

At Silver Creek and Indian Creek: 

Monitor stream bank alteration and 

vegetation two times annually, during 

and following livestock seasonal use 

period. 

Monitor functional condition and 

trend every 3 years. 

At Tule Creek:

Inspect and maintain the fenced 

exclosure two times annually when 

livestock are present in the area. 

Monitor stream bank alteration and 

vegetation annually when livestock are 

present. 

Monitor functional condition and 

trend every 3 years. 

Desired Future Condition - Spikedace

The Agua Fria River, where biologically 

suitable, is occupied by a thriving population of 

spikedace.

Management Actions - Spikedace

In cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, re-establish a spikedace population in 

the Agua Fria River.

Desired Future Condition - Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher

Riparian areas that could physically support (due 

to floodplain width and gradient) southwestern 

willow flycatcher habitats will attain the 
Chapter 2

246

vegetation structure, plant species diversity, 

density, and canopy cover to constitute suitable 

habitat. Vegetation in these riparian areas will 

be sufficiently dense and structurally complex to 

inhibit flycatcher predators and cowbirds from 

finding flycatcher nests. Livestock management 

facilities or other facilities will not be located so 

that they would attract cowbirds to suitable 

flycatcher habitat.

Management Actions - Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher

Within the range of southwestern willow 

flycatcher, livestock grazing will conform to the 

guidelines described in the "Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect" section of Guidance Criteria 

for Determinations of Effects of Grazing Permit 

Issuance and Renewal on Threatened and 

Endangered Species (BLM and US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arizona and New Mexico 

1999) or any subsequent agreed-upon 

amendment to these guidelines.

The current guidance criteria for Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect states:

1. Disturbance of individuals or nests, 

predation, or parasitism would not be 

likely because livestock use would not 

occur in occupied habitat during any 

time of the year. 

2. Suitability for nesting flycatchers would 

not be reduced because livestock 

grazing in unoccupied suitable habitat 

would not occur during the growing 

season (key vegetation characteristics 

are maintained or enhanced and 

conditions promoting cowbird 

parasitism are avoided). 

3. Cowbird parasitism would be unlikely 

because grazing would occur greater 

than five miles from occupied habitat 

during the breeding season, or 

4. Monitoring of flycatcher nests 

demonstrates that no cowbird parasitism 

is occurring when livestock use occurs 

closer than 5 miles, but not within, 

occupied habitat, or 

5. Cowbird parasitism would be unlikely 

due to the physical juxtapositions of 

habitat type, terrain, facilities, elevation, 

and other factors. 

6. Progression of potential habitat towards 

becoming suitable within 10 years 

would not be impeded by livestock 

grazing (e.g. regeneration or 

maintenance of woody vegetation is not 

impaired by trampling, bedding, or 

feeding). 

7. Sufficient monitoring is in place to

demonstrate that habitat suitability is 

being maintained or enhanced in 

accordance with two and four above.

Such monitoring would continue 

through the life of the grazing action 

under consideration. 

Desired Future Condition - Bald Eagle

Habitat quality and quantity of riparian areas 

within the foraging range of bald eagles in the 

Lake Pleasant area is maintained and nesting and 

habitat for wintering birds in the Agua Fria 

River drainage is maintained. Sufficient 

quantity and quality of these riparian areas 

provide roosting and potential nesting trees and 

adequate prey.

Desired Future Condition - Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo

Riparian areas that could physically support (due 

to floodplain width and gradient) yellow-billed 

cuckoo habitats will attain the vegetation 

structure, plant species diversity, density, and 

canopy cover to constitute suitable habitat.

Livestock utilization will not substantially 

reduce the abundance, density or distribution of 

native riparian tree species through herbivory.

Management Actions – Other Priority Species 

– Desert Bighorn Sheep

Domestic sheep and goat grazing will be 

prohibited within nine miles of occupied desert 

bighorn sheep habitat to avoid disease 

transmission and comply with Bureau 
Chapter 2

247

guidelines. Desert bighorn sheep habitat is 

depicted on Map 3-10. 

Management Actions – Other Priority Species 

– Birds of Conservation Concern

Management of habitat for Birds of 

Conservation Concern will emphasize avoidance 

or minimizing impacts and restoring and 

enhancing habitat quality to implement 

Executive Order 13186. Through the permitting 

process for all land use authorizations, ensure 

the maintenance of habitat quantity and quality.

Take (as defined in the Glossary) of migratory 

birds from authorized activities will be 

minimized or avoided.

Desired Future Condition – Riparian Habitat

Riparian areas will include a plant community 

that consists of streambanks dominated (> 50 

percent) by native species from the genera 

Scirpus, Carex, Juncus, and Eleocharis. The size 

class distribution of native riparian obligate trees 

will be > 15 percent seedlings, > 15 percent midsize, and > 15 percent large size (depending on 

existing conditions and the site potential). Size 

classes are defined as follows:

Seedlings are < 1 inch in basal diameter. 

Mid-sizes are 1 to 6 inches in basal 

diameter. 

Large sizes are > 6 inches in basal 

diameter. 

Management Actions - Springs

Developed springs, seeps, and other projects 

affecting water and related resources will be 

designed to protect ecological functions and 

processes and to continue to provide habitat at 

the source for endemic invertebrates, native 

fishes, and other native aquatic species that may 

be present.

Water rights needs will be quantified, filed for, 

and protected, including those for instream 

flows, streams, springs, and other water sources 

important to wildlife, fish, and riparian values.

Water quality will be monitored and protected to 

meet Federal and State standards and to ensure 

that the needs of fish and wildlife are met along 

with the needs of people.

Desired Future Conditions – Bat Roosts

The bat roost habitats values associated with 

natural caves and abandoned mine features are 

protected and these sites do not pose a threat to 

human safety.

Management Actions - Bat Roosts

Authorized activities will ensure the 

maintenance of bat roost habitat quantity and 

quality, using mitigation to achieve the DFC.

Desired Future Conditions – Wildlife Habitat 

Across All Areas

Maintain, restore, or enhance the diversity, 

distribution, and viability of populations of 

native plants and wildlife, and maintain, restore, 

or enhance overall ecosystem health.

Discretionary activities in the planning areas 

will be managed to ensure connectivity of 

habitats and maintenance of unrestricted wildlife 

movement.

All upland areas will include:

a plant community that consists of 

native perennial grass and ground cover 

adequate to improve wildlife habitat and 

improved watershed function based on 

monitoring and ecological site potential. 

Upland sites include five percent or 

greater dry-weight composition of 

native perennial grass, as limited by the 

potential of the ecological site as 

described by the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) 

ecological site guides. 

The Desired Plant Community for upland sites 

will have a long-term stable population of 

columnar cacti and paniculate agave, where the 

sites have the potential for such plant 

communities.
Chapter 2

248

Management Actions - Wildlife Habitat Across 

All Areas

Identify, minimize, and mitigate for wildlife 

habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation to 

achieve the DFC.

The Land Health Standards described in 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration (BLM 

1997a) will be applied to all activities on the 

public land.

The density and distribution of wildlife waters 

will be maintained, improved, or increased 

throughout the planning areas to sustain and 

enhance wildlife populations across their range.

All existing wildlife waters will be maintained 

or improved as needed to maintain the presence 

of perennial water for wildlife.

New wildlife waters will be built when needed 

to maintain, restore, or enhance native wildlife 

populations or distributions.

Reasonable administrative vehicular access will

be allowed for AGFD staff to wildlife water 

facilities for maintenance, repair, or research.

Water developments, including those for 

purposes other than wildlife will include design 

features to ensure safe and continued access to 

water by wildlife.

The planning areas contain suitable habitat for 

relocating and releasing individual animals and 

release of rehabilitated wildlife. These types of 

wildlife releases are not intended to establish 

new populations but are appropriate in areas of 

suitable habitat. Wildlife species that can be 

released include but are not limited to black 

bears; mountain lions; burrowing owls; and 

other raptors, reptiles, and game species.

The evaluation of vehicle routes, in conjunction 

with the route designation process, will consider 

the effect of routes on wildlife habitat values.

Routes that conflict with maintaining sensitive 

wildlife habitat will be mitigated to achieve 

DFC. Mitigation will include, but not be limited 

to the following:

route closure, 

seasonal use restrictions, 

rerouting, 

vehicle type restrictions, 

vehicle speed restrictions, and

other mitigation suitable to the nature of 

the conflict. 

Administrative access will be allowed by law for 

enforcement and AGFD and USFWS staff for 

natural resource management. AGFD's use of 

motorized and mechanized equipment off 

designated routes is considered an administrative 

use and will be allowed in suitable locations (as 

agreed to by BLM and AGFD) for such 

purposes including, but not limited to the 

following:

water supplementation, 

collar retrieval, 

capture and release of wildlife, and

maintenance, repair, and building or 

rebuilding of wildlife waters. 

Administrative Actions - Wildlife Habitat 

Across All Areas

Through cooperative partnerships with AGFD 

and other State and private entities, BLM will

conserve, enhance, and restore wildlife habitats, 

including natural springs, wetlands, and streams.

Continue to implement wildlife habitat 

management through wildlife HMPs, developed 

in cooperation with AGFD to meet the 

requirements of the Sikes Act and address sitespecific habitat management objectives. Existing 

HMPs will be used until new plans are 

developed.

Desired Future Condition – Invasive Species

The distribution and abundance of invasive 

plants and animals will be limited to current 

levels and through active management, the 

impact of invasive species on native ecosystems 

will be reduced from current levels.
Chapter 2

249

Management Actions – Invasive Species

Adverse impacts to natural plant and animal 

communities from invasive species would be 

reduced. Efforts to control or eradicate invasive 

wildlife species will be carried out in 

cooperation and collaboration with AGFD or 

suitable weed management associations or other 

organizations.

Nonintrusive, non-native plant species will be 

considered suitable where native species:

are not available, 

are not economically feasible, 

cannot achieve ecological objectives as 

well as non-native species, and

cannot compete with already established 

non-native species. 

The use and perpetuation of native plant species 

will be emphasized when restoring or 

rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands. 

Administrative Actions – Invasive Species

A monitoring, management, and educational 

program will be established to reduce the spread 

of plants classified as invasive by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA).

2.7.1.5 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocation

Allocate sites to one or more of the six use 

categories defined in BLM's Manual 8110.4: 

scientific use, 

conservation for future use, 

traditional use, 

public use, 

experimental use, and

discharged from management. 

Manage sites in accordance with the 

guidelines in Manual 8110.4. See Appendix E 

for information on these use categories.

Permit scientific and historical studies by 

qualified researchers at selected sites allocated 

to scientific use. The highest priority for study 

will be assigned to significant sites that are 

threatened by vandalism or other types of 

disturbance. Scientific studies will be guided by 

historic contexts and research designs. Priorities 

will also emphasize sites that have the potential 

to yield important information, as defined in 

approved research designs.

Allocate selected sites to public use for longterm preservation and public visitation.

Consider the following factors in selecting sites 

suitable for this type of use: 

presence of aboveground features, such 

as structures or rock art, 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 

selected areas to withstand visitation, 

accessibility to travel routes, and

visitor safety. 

Desired Future Condition

Cultural resources are protected to sustain their 

irreplaceable scientific, heritage, and educational 

values. Actions are implemented to monitor, 

limit, and repair damage. Partnerships and 

volunteers are utilized to support these 

objectives and management actions. Selected 

sites are interpreted to further public knowledge, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of cultural heritage 

values. 

Management Actions

Design and maintain facilities to preserve the 

visual integrity of cultural resource settings and 

cultural landscapes consistent with VRM 

objectives established in the RMP. These 

measures include, but are not limited to:

Implement physical and administrative 

protection measures to stop, limit, or repair 

damage and vandalism to sites. A variety 

of protection measures, described in BLM's 
Chapter 2

250

Manual 8140, may be used to protect the 

integrity of sites at risk:

closing routes, 

restricting grazing or other uses, 

building fences or other barriers, 

installing erosion control devices, 

placing soil into exposed vandal pits or 

rooms, 

erecting signs, and 

repairing, shoring up, or 

stabilizing walls or other parts of 

structures. 

Install and maintain protective signs, including 

carsonite posts, with the message of the Arizona 

Site Steward Program on sites that are 

vulnerable to vandalism. Install protective 

signs in a manner to avoid drawing attention to 

sites.

In evaluating project designs and proposed 

activities, seek to avoid disturbing or removing 

Native American human remains and associated 

items. Avoid directing site visitors toward areas 

where these items could be observed or 

disturbed.

Include stipulations in Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) to ensure that commercial tour 

operations will not damage cultural resources.

Require tour operators to report any new 

vandalism or damage to sites.

Limit groups visiting archaeological sites to 25 

people/sites at a time. BLM may permit larger 

groups on a case-by-case basis for educational 

events, if it implements mitigation to minimize 

adverse impacts.

Administrative Actions

Ensure that all proposed undertakings and 

authorizations are reviewed and conducted in 

compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA), the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and other 

applicable laws.

Continue to consult with Indian tribes to identify 

places of traditional importance and associated 

access needs. Develop measures for managing 

and protecting places that might be identified by 

tribes during the life of the plan.

Complete documentary research and oral 

histories to gain a better understanding of 

cultural resources from homesteading, mining, 

ranching, and other historical period activities.

Restrict public information about the locations 

of sites that are not allocated to public use 

(selected for interpretive and educational uses).

Establish collaborative research partnerships 

with academic institutions, professional and 

non-profit organizations, and avocational 

organizations. Provide opportunities for 

volunteer training and participation in site 

documentation, research, protection, and 

educational projects.

Continue to participate in Arizona Archaeology 

Awareness Month events, along with other 

educational outreach that highlights the values 

of cultural heritage resources and the need to 

protect these resources.

Provide opportunities for tribal participation in 

research and interpretation.

Honor tribal requests to protect the 

confidentiality of sensitive information, to the 

extent permitted by law.

Complete Class II (sample) and Class III 

(intensive) field inventories to identify cultural 

resources and evaluate the condition of sites, in 

accordance with Section 110 of the NHPA. Use 

the information obtained through these surveys 

to allocate sites to proper use categories, develop 

protection measures, and integrate survey results 

into research designs and interpretation efforts.

Map and document sites before interpretive 

development for public use, as needed to

preserve archaeological data, 

plan for interpretive facilities, and
Chapter 2

251

establish a baseline condition 

assessment for monitoring 

changes resulting from visitor use. 

Complete interpretive plans for sites allocated to 

public use through interpretive development.

Implement procedures for systematic monitoring 

of all sites developed or authorized for public 

visitation. Restrict visitor access or group tours 

to prevent any damage from visitor use.

Require that holders of SRPs give site 

visitors suitable educational information on 

archaeological site etiquette and resource 

conservation.

2.7.1.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics

Land Use Allocation

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics.

This allocation complies with guidance in 

Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2003-275 

Change 1, (Appendix I). This allocation is 

managed consistently with the directions in the 

referenced IM to maintain the landscape values 

described in Attachment 1 of that IM (which can 

be found in Appendix I).

Desired Future Condition 

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics contain few human intrusions 

with primitive and natural landscape settings, 

providing self-reliant and self-directed visitor 

experiences. These characteristics have been 

determined to be reasonably present and of 

sufficient value (condition, uniqueness, 

relevance, importance) and need (trend, risk), 

and to be practical to manage. Wildlife 

populations and habitat are recognized as 

important aspects of the naturalness and will be 

actively managed.

Lands and resources within these areas exhibit a 

high degree of naturalness. These areas are 

affected mainly by the forces of nature, and the 

imprint of human activity is substantially 

unnoticeable. Naturalness is evaluated by the 

following:

occurrence of vehicle routes, fences, 

wildlife, and range facilities, 

nature and extent of landscape 

modifications, 

presence of native plant and 

wildlife communities, and

habitat connectivity.

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation may be 

present. Travel will generally occur through 

non-motorized and non-mechanical means.

Motorized use that does not degrade natural and 

cultural resources or conflict with DFC may be 

allowed on designated routes. Non-motorized 

conveyances (such as bicycles) will be allowed 

on designated trails. The use of wheeled game 

carriers will be allowed away from designated 

routes.

There will be no or minimal developed 

recreation facilities. Lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics will provide 

opportunities for visitor adventure, challenge, 

solitude, and discovery. Recreation settings and 

associated experiences will be semi-primitive 

non-motorized to primitive with limited areas of 

semi-primitive motorized around designated 

vehicle routes. Hunting, hiking, backpacking, 

camping, horseback riding, mountain bicycling, 

wildlife observation, photography, and 

historic/cultural study will be the chief activities 

with foot or horseback the customary means of 

travel.

Non-motorized access may include developing 

some trails, or simply marking foot routes with 

posts for minimal disturbance of the ground 

surface. Installing trails may be considered, 

where needed; to protect resources, to ensure 

public safety, or to advance public education and 

interpretation of objectives.
Chapter 2

252

The rapid urbanization of central Arizona is 

expected to continue and demands on public 

lands are expected to increase. During the life 

of the plan, lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics will constitute some of 

the remaining large unaltered natural vistas 

within near proximity to the urbanizing areas.

This "open space" would be maintained by 

careful project planning and design to minimize 

the visual intrusion of any management activity.

Management Actions

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics will be managed to protect 

primitive characteristics. The management 

actions are designed to 

maintain low interaction among users

away from designated routes,

provide opportunities for experiencing 

isolation from the sights and sounds of 

other humans.

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics will be managed to have limited 

evidence of human-induced management 

restrictions and controls. Visitors will be 

encouraged to practice Leave No Trace skills to 

avoid human-induced impacts.

Motorized vehicle routes within lands allocated 

to maintain wilderness characteristics will be 

designated in the Travel Management Plan 

within 5 years of plan approval. Vehicle 

routes would be mitigated to resolve conflicts 

with cultural, biological, or other resources to 

achieve DFC objectives (which may allow for 

motorized access in these areas). Mitigation 

measures may include the following:

rerouting conflicting route segments, 

engineering to reduce conflicts , 

limiting seasons of use, vehicle type, 

vehicle speed, or vehicle numbers, and

closing routes.

BLM would consider building new routes only 

as a mitigation measure for route and resource 

conflicts or where necessary to meet approved 

administrative actions.

Sites and areas affected by human activities 

would be reclaimed when such locales or sites 

are no longer needed by authorized land uses.

Commercial recreation and vending operations, 

guided hunt and associated activities, and 

concession leases would be allowed when such 

activities conform to to the following:

land use plan objectives, 

desired recreation settings, 

VRM classes, and

other social and managerial settings. 

AGFD's use of motorized and mechanized 

equipment off designated routes is considered an 

administrative use and will be allowed 

in suitable locations (as agreed to by BLM and 

AGFD) for such purposes including, but not 

limited to the following:

water supplementation, 

collar retrieval, 

capture and release of wildlife, and

maintenance, repair, and building or 

rebuilding of wildlife waters.

Discretionary surface-disturbing activities that 

involve excavations or the use of motorized or 

mechanized equipment and are not compatible 

with achieving the DFC or specifically described 

for each area would be prohibited. 

Administrative Actions

Develop and adopt measurement standards for 

limits of acceptable change for the following:

trail conditions, 

visitor-to-visitor encounters,

vegetation changes, 

applying Arizona Land Health 

Standards, and

approved motorized and mechanized 

activities. 
Chapter 2

253

A permit system would be applied, if needed, for 

the following purposes:

to conserve solitude and primitive 

recreation opportunities, 

to preserve desired social and 

managerial settings, 

to safeguard resources, and

to mitigate resource impacts.

Any permit system would include coordination 

with other State and Federal entities that issue 

use permits on Federal lands to assure that 

authorized permittees have fair and reasonable 

access to their permitted activity. For example, 

should a permit system be implemented, BLM 

will coordinate with AGFD to allow access for 

hunters with valid hunting licenses.

2.7.1.7 Paleontological 

Resources

Desired Future Condition 

Paleontological resources will be managed for 

their scientific, educational, recreation values, 

and adverse impacts to these resources will be 

mitigated. BLM will preserve and protect 

significant vertebrate paleontological resources 

for present and future generations. Scientifically 

significant invertebrates (to be determined by a 

qualified paleontologist) will also be protected.

Land Use Allocations

Areas will be classified according to their 

potential to contain vertebrate fossils or 

noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant 

fossils. Paleontological Sensitivity Classes are 

listed in Table 2-6.

Management Actions

BLM will identify and protect significant fossils 

and allow for scientific research at 

paleontological sites, in accordance 

with permitting procedures.

Should paleontological resources be discovered 

within the planning area, the sites will be 

evaluated for sensitivity. The sites would then 

be classified and managed consistent with the 

land use allocation classifications described 

above.

Administrative Actions

BLM will include paleontological resources in 

its cultural resources public education.

Educational programs will:

provide information directly related to 

procedures to be followed if fossils are 

found, and

identify types of fossils that cannot be 

collected without a permit from the 

BLM. 

BLM will analyze the potential for 

paleontological resources and do the following:

Develop a sensitivity map for 

paleontological resources and require 

screening for all projects against potential 

for the project to impact vertebrate fossils or 

noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or 

plant fossils. 

Allocate through plan amendment if 

appropriate, all lands within the planning 

areas as Paleontological Sensitivity Class 

One, Two, Three, or Four as described 

in Table 2-6. 

Evaluate newly found vertebrate localities to 

determine their importance and the potential 

threat of loss to determine an adequate 

monitoring program. 
Chapter 2

254

2.7.1.8 Visual Resources

Land Use Allocations

Visual Resource Management Areas

Desired Future Conditions

As defined in BLM's Handbook H-8410-1, 

Visual Resource Inventory, (Section B, one 

through four) objectives for the four VRM 

classes are described below:

VRM Class I Objective: The objective of this 

landscape. This class provides for natural 

ecological changes, but it does not preclude very 

limited management activity. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape should be 

very low and must not attract attention.

VRM Class II Objective: The objective of this 

class is to retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be low.

Management activities may be seen, but should 

not attract the attention of the casual observer.

Any changes must repeat the basic elements of 

form, line, color, and texture found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic 

landscape.

VRM Class III Objective: The objective of this 

class is to partially retain the existing character 

of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be moderate.

Management activities may attract attention but 

should not dominate the view of the casual 

observer. Changes should repeat the basic 

elements found in the predominant natural 

features of the characteristic landscape.

VRM Class IV Objectives: The objective of this 

class is to provide for management activities that 

require major modifications of the existing 

character of the landscape. The level of change 

to the characteristic landscape can be high.

These management activities may dominate the 

view and be the major focus of viewer's 

attention. Every attempt should be made to 

minimize the impact of these activities through 

careful location, minimal disturbance, and 

repeating the basic elements.

Management Actions

Project proposals that could result in surface 

disturbance or may contain visible 

components would be analyzed using procedures 

outlined in BLM Handbook H-8431-1, Visual 

Contrast Rating, to determine their conformance 

with the VRM allocation of the project area. If 

necessary, modifications would be made to the 

project, including design changes or a change of 

location, for the project to meet the VRM Class 

objective. In any case, regardless of VRM 

Class, an effort will be made to make any 

project proposal with a visible component as 

visually compatible with its surroundings as 

practical.

2.7.1.9 Rangeland Management

The following actions would apply to 

Alternatives in which grazing is permitted.

Table 2-6. Paleontological Sensitivity Classes

Classification Definition

Class 1 

(Low 

sensitivity)

Igneous and metamorphic geologic 

units and sedimentary geologic 

units where vertebrate fossils or 

uncommon invertebrate fossils are 

unlikely to occur.

Class 2 

(Moderate 

sensitivity)

Sedimentary geologic units that are 

known to contain or have unknown 

potential to contain fossils that vary 

in significance, abundance, and 

predictable occurrence.

Class 3 

(Moderate 

sensitivity)

Areas where geologic units are 

known to contain fossils but have 

little or no risk of human-caused 

adverse impacts or low risk of 

natural degradation.

Class 4 

(High 

sensitivity)

Areas where geologic units 

regularly and predictably contain 

vertebrate fossils or uncommon 

invertebrate fossils and are at risk 

of natural degradation or humancaused adverse impacts.
Chapter 2

255

They would also apply to grazing management 

in the interim period from when grazing is 

prohibited to the final removal of livestock: 

BLM has implemented the application of 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

for Grazing Administration (Land Health 

Standards). Allotment evaluations to determine 

if grazing practices are achieving the desired 

standards are conducted before the grazing 

permit or lease is renewed. Changes in grazing 

practices needed to achieve the standards are 

then incorporated in the stipulations of the 

reissued permit or lease. Rest-rotation, deferredrotation, seasonal or short-duration use, or other 

management systems may be implemented 

where needs are identified through monitoring.

Monitoring will be used to assess the 

effectiveness of changes brought about by the 

new management practices. 

Exceptions to Standard 1 and 2 of the Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health may occur on 

ecological sites or stream reaches where a 

change in existing vegetation is physically, 

biologically, or economically impractical.

Public Lands without a grazing permit or lease 

authorization would remain unauthorized for 

livestock grazing. 

Where livestock grazing is permitted, range 

improvements needed for proper management of 

the grazing program would be determined and 

completed, including repair and/or installation of 

fences, cattle guards, water developments, 

and vehicle routes needed to access 

improvement sites. These improvements would 

be conducted using a variety of mechanical 

equipment.

Vehicular access to repair range improvements 

by the grazing permittee or lessee would be 

considered administrative access. Use of vehicle 

routes closed to public use but limited to 

administrative uses would be allowed to 

maintain or repair range improvements. Offroute vehicular use would require prior 

authorization unless the needed access is to 

resolve an immediate risk to human health, 

safety, or property.

One-time travel off designated routes to access 

or retrieve; sick or injured livestock would 

be authorized as an administrative use for 

transporting the animal to obtain medical help.

Retiring livestock grazing from 

an allotment would be considered when those 

lands are devoted to a public purpose that 

precludes continued livestock grazing.

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health -

Guidelines for Grazing Administration

The Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Administration are a 

series of management practices used to ensure 

that grazing meets the standards for rangeland 

health, which are referred to in this plan as Land 

Health Standards. The following guidelines 

apply to all areas where grazing occurs.

Guidelines for Standard One

1-1. Management activities will maintain or 

promote ground cover that will provide for 

infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, 

and soil stability appropriate for the ecological 

sites within MUs. The ground cover should 

maintain soil organisms, 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. 

Guidelines for Standard Two

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. 
Chapter 2

256

gradient, width/depth ratio, channel roughness, 

and sinuosity), and functions suitable 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 these functions.

2-3. The development of springs, seeps, or other 

projects affecting water, and associated 

resources will be designed to protect ecological 

functions and processes.

Guidelines for Standard Three

3-1. The use and perpetuation of native species 

will be emphasized. When restoring or 

rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands, 

nonintrusive, non-native plant species 

are suitable 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 

maintaining or restoring 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 plant species needed 

to reach DPC (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; as well as sufficient 

surface and subsurface soil moisture 

exists for continued plant growth. 

Serviceable waters can provide for 

proper grazing distribution. 

Sufficient annual vegetation will remain 

on site to satisfy other resource concerns 

(e.g. watershed, wildlife, wild horses, 

and burros). 

Monitoring is conducted during grazing 

to determine if objectives are being met. 

3-6. Management practices will 

target populations of noxious weeds that can be 

controlled or eliminated by approved methods.

3-7. Management practices to achieve DPCs will 

consider protecting and conserving known 

cultural resources, including historical sites, 

prehistoric sites, and plants of significance to 

Native American people. 

DPC objectives would be quantified for each 

allotment through the rangeland monitoring and 

evaluation process. Ecological site descriptions 

available through the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), and other data 

will be used as a guide for addressing site 

capabilities and potentials for change over time.

These DPC objectives are vegetation values that 

BLM is managing over the long term. Once 

established, DPC objectives would be updated 

and monitored by the use of indicators for Land 

Health Standard Three.

Apply management actions outlined in the 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration 

(Land Health Standards) to recognize and 

correct potential erosion problems that 

could degrade other resources, with 

prioritized emphasis on sites that might 

directly affect species that have been listed 

as threatened, endangered, or candidate by 

the USFWS.
Chapter 2

257

2.7.1.10 Fire Management

Desired Future Conditions

Fire is recognized as a natural process in 

fire-adapted ecosystems and is used to 

achieve objectives for other resources. 

Fuels in the Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI) are maintained at non-hazardous 

levels to provide for public and 

firefighter safety. 

Prescribed fire complies with Federal 

and State air quality regulations. 

Each vegetation community is 

maintained within its natural range of 

variation in plant composition, structure, 

and function, and fuel loads are 

maintained below levels that are 

considered to be hazardous (See Table 

2-7 and Appendix J for more 

information on each vegetation 

community).

DFCs will be coordinated with the 

rangeland standard and guidelines 

allotment evaluations. 

Land Use Allocation

BLM-administered public lands will be assigned 

to one of the following two land use allocations 

for fire management (Table 2-7).

Allocation One - Wildland Fire Use:

Areas suitable for wildland fire use for 

resource management benefit.

Where wildland fire is desired, few or no 

constraints exist on its use, and conditions are 

suitable, unplanned and planned wildfire may be 

used to achieve desired objectives such as the 

following:

to improve vegetation, wildlife habitat, 

or watershed conditions, 

to maintain non-hazardous levels of 

fuels, 

to reduce the hazardous effects of 

unplanned wildland fires, and

to meet resource objectives.

Where fuel loading is high but conditions are not 

initially suitable for wildland fire, fuel loads are 

reduced by mechanical, chemical, or biological 

means to reduce hazardous fuel levels and meet 

resource objectives (includes WUI areas).

Management Actions

Use suitable tools for reducing hazardous fuels, 

including prescribed burning, wildland fire use, 

and mechanical methods. Methods can include 

the following:

chainsaws, 

motorized equipment for crushing brush, 

tractor and hand piling, 

thinning and pruning, and

treatments selected on a site-specific 

case that are ecologically suitable and 

cost effective. 

Land Use Allocation

Allocation Two - Non Wildland Fire Use:

Areas not suitable for wildland fire use for 

resource benefit. 

This allocation includes areas such as the 

following where mitigation and suppression are 

required to prevent direct threats to life or 

property:

areas where fire historically never 

played a large role in developing and 

maintaining the ecosystem,

areas where intervals between fires were 

very long, and 

areas (including some WUI areas) where 

an unplanned ignition could harm the 

ecosystem unless some form of 

mitigation is applied. 

Mitigation may include mechanical, biological, 

chemical, or prescribed fire means to maintain 

non-hazardous levels of fuels, reduce the 

hazardous effects of unplanned wildland fires, 

and meet resource objectives.
Chapter 2

258

The allocation of lands is based on the DFC of 

vegetation communities, ecological conditions, 

and ecological risks. The allocation of lands is 

determined by contrasting current and historical 

conditions and ecological risks of any changes 

(Map 2-93 Fire Land Use Allocation). The 

condition class concept helps describe changes 

in key ecosystem components such as species 

composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy 

closure, and fuel loadings. BLM fire 

management plans will include the two 

allocations and identify areas for including fire 

use and mechanical, biological, or chemical 

means to

maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels, 

reduce the hazardous effects of 

unplanned wildland fires, and

meet resource objectives.

Fire management plans will also determine 

which areas will be excluded from fire (through 

fire suppression) and which will 

receive chemical, mechanical, or biological 

treatments.

Management Actions

In areas not suitable for fire, BLM would 

implement programs to reduce unwanted 

ignitions and emphasize prevention, detection, 

and rapid suppression response.

In areas not suitable for fire where fuel loading 

is high, BLM would use biological, mechanical, 

or chemical treatments and some prescribed fire 

to maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels and 

meet resource objectives.

In areas suitable for fire where fuel loading is 

high and current conditions constrain fire use, 

BLM would emphasize prevention and 

mitigation programs to reduce unwanted fire 

ignitions and use mechanical, biological, or 

chemical treatments to mitigate the fuel loadings 

and meet resource objectives.

In areas suitable for fire where conditions allow, 

BLM would do the following:

allow naturally ignited wildland fire, 

use prescribed fire and a combination of 

biological, mechanical, and chemical 

treatments to maintain nonhazardous 

levels of fuels, 

reduce the hazardous effects of 

unplanned wildland fires, and

meet resource objectives. 

In areas suitable for fire, BLM would monitor 

existing air quality levels and weather conditions 

to determine which prescribed fires can be 

ignited and which, if any, must be delayed to 

ensure that air quality meets Federal and State 

standards. If air quality approaches unhealthy 

levels, BLM would delay igniting prescribed 

fires.

In addition to both allocations, to reduce humancaused fires, BLM would undertake education, 

enforcement, and administrative fire prevention 

mitigation measures. Education measures would 

include the following:

provide media information, including a 

signing program, 

give the public information on the 

natural role of fire within local 

ecosystems, and

participate in fairs, parades, and public 

contacts.

Enforcement would train employees interested 

in determining the cause of fires. Administration 

would include expanded prevention and 

education programs with cooperator agencies.

For all fire management activities (wildfire 

suppression; appropriately managed wildfire 

use; prescribed fire; and mechanical, chemical, 

and biological vegetation treatments), 

conservation measures would be implemented as 

part of the proposed action to provide statewide 

consistency in reducing the effects of fire 

management on federally protected (threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate) species 

(see Appendix P).

Use suitable tools for reducing hazardous fuels, 

including prescribed burning, wildland fires, 
Chapter 2

259

and mechanical methods. Methods can include 

chainsaws, motorized equipment for crushing 

brush, tractors and hand piling, thinning and 

pruning, and treatments that are selected on a 

site-specific basis and are ecologically suitable 

and cost effective.

Conservation measures noted as 

―recommended‖ are discretionary for 

implementation but are recommended to help 

minimize effects to federally protected species.

Incorporated here by reference are procedures 

within the Interagency Standards for Fire and 

Fire Aviation Operations (Task Group 2004), 

including future updates, relevant to fire 

operations that may affect federally protected 

species or their habitat.

Firefighter and public safety are the first priority 

in every fire management activity. Setting 

priorities among protecting human communities 

and community infrastructure, other property 

and improvements, and natural and cultural 

resources must be based on the following:

values to be protected, 

human health and safety, and

costs of protection (BLM 2001b).

Implementing, to the extent possible, the 

following conservation measures during fire 

suppression and during proposed fire 

management activities, as required, would 

minimize or eliminate the effects to federally 

protected species and habitats.

During fire suppression resource advisors may 

be designated to coordinate concerns on 

federally protected species and to serve as 

liaison between the field office manager and the 

incident commander and the incident 

management team. Resource advisors will also 

serve as field contact representatives responsible 

for coordinating with the USFWS. Resource 

advisors will have the needed information on 

federally protected species and habitats in the 

area and the available conservation measures for 

the species. They will be briefed on the 

intended suppression actions for the fire and will 

provide input on which conservation measures 

are suitable within the standard constraints of 

safety and operational procedures. The incident 

commander has the final decision making 

authority on implementation of conservation 

measures during fire suppression.

Conflicts may occur in attempting to implement 

all conservation measures for every species 

potentially affected by a particular 

activity, because of the number of species within 

the action area for the proposed statewide land 

use plan amendment (Dynamac Corporation 

2004); and the variety of fire suppression and 

proposed fire management activities.

Implementing these conservation measures 

would depend on:

the number of federally protected 

species and

their individual life histories or habitat 

requirements within a particular location 

that is being affected by either fire 

suppression or a proposed fire 

management activity. 

Conflicts could particularly arise from timing 

restrictions on fuel treatment if the ranges of 

several species with differing restrictions 

overlap. It could; therefore, be impossible to 

effectively implement the activity. Resource 

advisors (in coordination with USFWS), fire 

management officers, incident commanders, and 

other resource specialists would need to 

coordinate to determine which conservation 

measures would be implemented during a 

particular activity. If conservation measures for 

a species cannot be implemented, BLM would 

be required to initiate Section 7 consultation 

with USFWS for that activity.

BLM will update local fire management plans to 

include site-specific actions for managing 

wildfire and fuels in accordance with the new 

Federal fire policies, based on guidance 

provided in the decision records for this 

statewide land use plan amendment (Dynamac 

Corporation 2004). These plans will be 

coordinated with USFWS and the AGFD to 

address site-specific concerns for federally 

protected species. These plans will incorporate 
Chapter 2

260

the conservation measures included in this 

statewide land use plan amendment for federally 

protected species occurring within each fire 

management zone. BLM will consult 

with USFWS on these project-level plans, as 

needed.

Categories A, B, C, and D, polygons are 

referenced in the 1998 Fire Management Plan 

(FMP). The FMP was updated in 2007 and has

fire management units containing polygons 

based on the following:

vegetation communities, 

fire regime condition classes, and

closeness to urban interface areas. 

As a fuels management tool, BLM uses 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to 

maintain semi-desert grasslands in Agua Fria 

National Monument. BLM has designated 24 

burn units, encompassing 50,000 acres, to 

receive treatment on a 5- to 10-year rotation.

Prescribed fire in this area is coordinated closely 

with similar projects conducted by Prescott and 

Tonto National Forests to provide an ecosystemwide effort to maintain the Agua Fria grasslands. 

Resource objectives under the current fire 

management plan include the following:

reducing woody species, 

increasing ground cover, 

increasing perennial grass cover and 

production, 

increasing annual grass and forb 

production, and

improving pronghorn antelope habitat. 

Prescribed fire is used in the Weaver Mountains 

within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area. The Weaver Mountain Hazard Fuels 

Reduction Project was developed to treat hazard 

fuel accumulations, which are located on 14,000 

acres of BLM, State, and private lands in 

chaparral vegetation 17 miles north of 

Wickenburg. Project objectives are (1) to 

reduce the risk of large, catastrophic wildfire 

and (2) to maximize benefits to wildlife and 

livestock by reducing dense chaparral cover by 

30 percent to 80 percent. During prescribed 

burning about 1,000 acres of chaparral will 

be treated annually over the next 5 to 10 years to 

create mosaic patterns in the mixed age class 

chaparral community throughout the 14,000 acre 

project area.

Special Area Designations

Fire management activities in Agua Fria 

National Monument would ensure that no 

adverse effects occur to the resources listed in 

the proclamation (Appendix A) as the reasons 

for establishing the area.

In wilderness areas, when suppression actions 

are required, minimum impact suppression 

tactics (MIST, Interagency Standards for Fire 

and Fire Aviation Operations [Task Group 

2004]) would be applied and coordinated with 

wilderness area management objectives and 

guidelines.

Fire management efforts along river segments 

recommended as suitable for designation under 

the WSR Act would use measures that 

avoid degrading the outstandingly remarkable 

values that qualify the rivers for designation.

ACECs are established in land use plans. BLM 

would consider the desired conditions and 

management prescriptions for these Special Area 

Designations in implementing fire management 

activities.

Wildfires resulting from natural fire starts 

(lightning) from an adjoining ownership may be 

allowed to cross jurisdictional boundaries if the 

fire meets predetermined, prescription criteria, 

and the ownerships have an agreement.

2.7.1.11 Recreation

Standards for Recreation Settings referred to in 

this document are as follows:

Recreation Settings - Settings described in the 

recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) 
Chapter 2

261

inventory method. Descriptions of the settings 

follow:

Primitive:

Remoteness: An area designated by a line 

generally three miles from all open roads, 

railroads, and motorized trails

Evidence of Humans: Setting is essentially an 

unmodified natural environment. Evidence of 

humans would be unnoticed by an observer 

wandering through the area.

Evidence of trails is acceptable but should not 

exceed standard to carry expected use.

Structures are extremely rare.

Social: Usually less than six parties per day 

encountered on trails and less than three parties 

visible at campsites.

Managerial: Onsite regimentation is low with 

controls primarily offsite. 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized: 

Remoteness: An area designated by a line 

generally 1/2 mile from any road, railroad, or 

trail open to public motorized use. (The 

guideline for applying the 1/2 mile criterion is to 

use 1/2 mile except where topographic or 

physical features closer than 1/2 miles 

adequately screen out the sights and sounds of 

humans and make access more difficult and 

slower. For example, if a ridge is 1/4 mile from 

the road, use the ridge instead of the 1/2 mile.)

Any roads, railroads, or trails within the semiprimitive non-motorized areas will have the 

following characteristics:

Closed to public motorized use, and 

Are reclaimed, or in the process of reclaiming 

(when reclaiming will harmonize with the 

natural appearing environment). Some examples 

are old logging roads, old railroad beds, old 

access routes to abandoned campsites, 

temporary roads, and gated roads that are used 

for occasional administrative access. 

Evidence of Humans: Natural setting may have 

subtle modifications that would be noticed but 

not draw the attention of an observer wandering 

through the area.

Little or no evidence of primitive roads and the 

motorized use of trails and primitive roads.

Structures are rare and isolated.

Social: Usually 6-15 parties per day 

encountered on trails and six or fewer parties 

visible from campsite.

Managerial: Onsite regimentation and controls 

present but subtle.

Semi-Primitive Motorized:

Remoteness: An area designed by a line 

generally 1/2 mile from open better than 

primitive roads. (The guideline for applying the 

1/2 mile criterion is to consistently use 1/2 mile 

where topographic or physical features closer 

than 1/2 mile adequately screen out the sights 

and sounds of humans, e.g. a ridge 1/4 mile from 

the road).

Contains open primitive roads that are not 

maintained for the use of standard passengertype vehicles, normally OHVs and highclearance vehicles, e.g. an old pickup with high 

clearance. These open roads are generally tracks, 

ruts, or rocky-rough surface and ungraded and 

not drained. The roadbeds and cuts are mostly 

vegetated with grass or native material unless 

they are too rocky for vegetation. The roads 

harmonize with the natural environment. 

Examples include old logging roads from before 

specified road years, old revegetated railroad 

beds, old access roads to abandoned home-sites, 

temporary logging roads that are revegetated, 

and low standard administrative roads (normally 

used for access to wildlife openings).
Chapter 2

262

Evidence of Humans: Natural setting may have 

moderately dominant alterations but would not 

draw the attention of motorized observers on 

trails and primitive roads within the area. Any 

closed improved roads must be managed to 

revegetate and harmonize with the natural 

environment.

Strong evidence of primitive roads and the 

motorized use of trails and primitive roads.

Structures are rare and isolated.

Social: Low to moderate contact frequency.

Managerial: Onsite regimentation and controls 

present but subtle.

Roaded Natural:

Remoteness: No criteria

Evidence of Humans: Natural setting may have 

modifications, which range from being easily 

noticed to strongly dominant to observers within 

the area. But from sensitive travel routes and use 

areas these alterations would remain unnoticed 

or visually subordinate.

There is strong evidence of designed roads, 

highways, or both.

Structures are generally scattered, remaining 

visually subordinate or unnoticed to the sensitive 

travel route observer. Structures may include 

utility corridors or microwave installations.

Social: Frequency of contact is - Moderate to 

high on roads; Low to Moderate on trails and 

away from roads.

Managerial: Onsite regimentation and controls 

are noticeable but harmonize with the natural 

environment.

Rural:

Remoteness: No criteria

Evidence of Humans: Natural setting is 

culturally modified to the point that it is 

dominant to the sensitive travel route observer. 

This setting may include pastoral, agricultural, 

intensively managed wildland resource 

landscapes, or utility corridors. Pedestrian or 

other slow-moving observers are constantly 

within view of culturally changed landscape.

There is strong evidence of designed roads, 

highways, or both.

Structures are readily apparent and may range 

from scattered to small dominant clusters, 

including utility corridors, farm buildings, 

microwave installations, and recreation sites.

Social: Frequency of contact is - Moderate to 

High developed sites, on roads and trails, and 

water surfaces; Moderate away from developed 

sites.

Managerial: Regimentation and controls 

obvious and numerous, largely in harmony with 

the human-made environment.

Urban:

Remoteness: No criteria

Evidence of Humans: Setting is strongly 

structure dominated. Natural or natural 

appearing elements may play an important role 

but be visually subordinate. Pedestrian and other 

slow moving observers are constantly within 

view of artificial enclosure of spaces.

There is strong evidence of designed roads 

and/or highways and streets.

Structures and structure complexes are 

dominant.

Social: Large numbers of users onsite and in 

nearby areas.

Managerial: Regimentation and controls 

obvious and numerous
Chapter 2

263

Implementation: Projects requiring 

environmental analysis as a part of an 

authorization process will include an analysis to 

determine compatibility or consistency with the 

settings as described above. This analysis will 

be conducted consistent with current accepted 

practice and documented in the project record.

2.7.1.12 Travel Management

All motorized and mechanized travel is limited 

to existing roads and trails, according to the 

current inventory of routes, until final route 

designations are made.

The boundaries of Travel Management Areas 

correspond to Management Unit boundaries.

Travel management plans (TMPs) will be 

created for each Travel Management Area 

(TMA) as route designations are completed. 

The TMP will address issues such as:

Creating a catalog for each individual 

route‘s Travel Management Objective 

(TMO) sheets;

Risk management

Coordination with adjoining 

jurisdictions

Procedures for making additions and 

deletions from the route system;

Signing plans and sign inventories;

Facility development (engineering);

Education and enforcement;

System monitoring and compliance;

Coordination with BLM‘s Facility and 

Asset Management System(FAMS);

Dust management plans;

Other topics as necessary to manage 

travel.

The following considerations will guide 

decisions on travel management. 

a. Designated wilderness areas are managed 

according to the existing decisions described 

in this plan.

b. All areas outside of designated wilderness are 

limited vehicle use areas where vehicles are 

limited to routes designated as open or 

available for vehicle use as follows:

Non-motorized, mechanized vehicle use 

(e.g., bicycles, hang gliders, other devices 

for conveyance and stock drawn 

carts/wagons) is restricted to routes or sites 

designated as available, or open for such 

use. Non-motorized, hand-powered 

wheeled game carriers are permitted as 

described below.

Decisions regarding motorized vehicles are 

according to the prescriptions in the Travel 

Management sections of this plan.

c. Non-mechanized travel (i.e., foot and 

equestrian use) is allowed off designated 

routes, except where otherwise prohibited. 

The creation of routes caused by repetitive use 

is discouraged. Routes not meeting land 

health standards or plan objectives may be 

closed. 

d. All caves, mines, wells, abandoned structures, 

or other confined spaces are closed to public 

entry unless an individual site is signed open 

for such entry or entry is authorized under 

special use permit.

e. The use of aircraft, motorized and nonmotorized, must conform to Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) standards including the 

use of backcountry landing strips. There are 

no backcountry airstrips designated for public 

use on BLM land within the planning area. 

Use of public lands for launching or landing 

aircraft other than airplanes (balloons, hang 

gliders, etc.) may be permitted on a case-bycase basis through the appropriate permit

process. The Yarnell Hang Gliding launch 

area is discussed in other sections of this plan.

f. Area closures to access and travel methods 

may be enacted where travel is determine to 

be inconsistent with the recreation 

management zone, harming resources, or 

failing to achieve the objectives of the plan.

g. Touring routes and trail systems, both 

motorized and non-motorized, are a priority 

and will be addressed through activity 

(implementation) level planning. Proposed 

actions that may effect proposed touring 

routes and trail systems will be evaluated and 

adjusted when possible to avoid impacts. 

Examples of priority routes and trail systems 

include the Maricopa County Regional Trail 
Chapter 2

264

System and long distance vehicle touring 

routes with local and regional significance.

h. Administrative and other authorized use will 

be approved on a case-by-case basis (see 

decision of administrative and emergency 

access below).

i. Temporary access and use restrictions may be 

enacted when needed to protect resources or 

public health and safety.

PM10 Non-attainment Area Administrative 

TMA:

a. All General TMA prescriptions apply.

b. The areas described in 40 CFR 81.303 or 

subsequent regulation or policy as PM10 air 

quality non-attainment areas will be managed 

for compliance with EPA and County standards 

and other applicable standards to maintain air 

quality. Dust mitigation measures may be 

implemented including, but not limited to, speed 

limits, adding dust reducing agents to disturbed 

areas, seasonal closure, or year round closure.

2.7.2 Management Common 

to Agua Fria National 

Monument

2.7.2.1 Management Units

The size and complexity of Agua Fria National 

Monument does not require subdivision into 

MUs. The monument is a MU in and of itself.

2.7.2.2 Special Area 

Designations

Management Actions

Continue to manage the suitable WSR proposals 

for non-impairment of free-flowing conditions 

and identified outstandingly remarkable values 

(Map 2-2). 

Remove the designations of Larry Canyon and 

Perry Mesa ACECs because the Monument 

Proclamation (Appendix A) provides for a 

higher level of protection and management 

across a more extensive landscape, rendering 

these designations unnecessary.

2.7.2.3 Lands and Realty

In accordance with the FLPMA and the National 

Monument Proclamation (Appendix A), no 

lands within the monument may be disposed of 

or exchanged. Acquiring non-Federal lands 

within the monument will be considered if they 

become available from a willing seller. Upon 

acquisition, these lands would automatically 

become a part of the monument. Acquiring 

adjacent non-Federal lands (from a willing 

seller) will be considered if they could be 

managaged to enhance monument values.

Land Use Allocations

Utility and Transportation Corridors and 

Communication Sites

Management Actions

New utility corridors, whether interstate, 

intrastate, or local, would not conform to the 

provisions of the National Monument 

Proclamation. Therefore, such corridors within 

the monument will not be considered. 

New transportation corridors, whether interstate, 

intrastate, or local, would not conform to the 

proclamation. Therefore, such corridors within 

the monument would not be considered. 

New BLM communication site areas designated 

in advance of demand would not conform to the 

proclamation. Therefore, new communication 

site areas within the monument would not be 

considered. 

Access to existing utilities on existing vehicle 

routes is considered an administrative use and is 

allowed. Continued maintenance of authorized 

facilities is also allowed with suitable mitigation 

to minimize affects to monument resources.

Design maintenance of vehicle routes for access 

to correct hazardous or unsafe conditions, 
Chapter 2

265

but keep them to the smallest size and condition 

necessary to provide access.

2.7.2.4 Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Management Actions

Maintain and protect water quantity and quality 

in springs and streams. 

Prohibit surface water diversions and 

groundwater pumping that removes water from 

the monument or adversely affects the 

monument's values.

Collaborate with State and local entities to 

protect surface and subsurface water in the 

monument.

Administrative Actions

Develop and implement a water quality/quantity 

monitoring program to establish baseline data 

needed to quantify the Federal reserved water 

right for the monument. Monitoring may 

include the following:

periodic measurements of spring and 

stream flows,

periodic measurements of water 

levels in selected wells, and 

regular sampling and water quality 

analysis of surface water throughout 

the monument. 

2.7.2.5 Biological Resources

Management Actions

Fuels reduction projects may include provisions 

for permitting firewood collection on a case-bycase basis. 

Written authorization from the monument 

manager is needed for collecting plant materials 

for scientific purposes. 

Prohibit all other vegetation collection or 

removal.

2.7.2.6 Cultural Resources

Land Use Allocations

The following sites would be allocated to the 

category of ―conservation for future use‖:

Rattlesnake Pueblo and other prehistoric 

masonry structures in the back country 

region south of Perry Tank Canyon, 

all rock art sites larger than a single, 

isolated boulder, and

the historic stone features at Arizona 

N:16:70 (MNA). 

For more information on this use category and 

associated actions, see Appendix E. 

Allocate to scientific use sites that would allow 

for study under approved research plans.

The use category of ―discharged from 

management‖ would be applied in a limited 

manner, consistent with the protection of 

monument resources and the cultural landscape 

of the Perry Mesa National Register District.

The allocation of "discharged 

from management" would be applied mainly to 

properties that have lost their heritage values 

through the following:

damage or destruction by natural 

processes, 

unauthorized activities, and

actions conducted before the monument 

was established (2000). 

Selected sites would be allocated to public use 

for long-term preservation and public 

visitation. See Appendix E for more 

information on this use category.

Management Actions

At sites allocated to conservation for future use, 

scientific studies would normally be limited to 
Chapter 2

266

surveys, mapping, and other noninvasive 

documentation methods. The BLM would 

preserve the integrity of these sites and their 

settings through use restrictions and protective 

measures. Following BLM‘s Manual 8110, the 

BLM could specify provisions that would allow 

for scientific excavations, under limited 

circumstances. The permit applicant would need 

to justify why this work would be a critical 

component of an approved research design, and 

why the needed information could not be 

obtained elsewhere in the monument.

Scientific use allocations would allow for the 

following: 

detailed documentation through such 

techniques as mapping, photography, 

photogrammetry, and remote sensing, 

sample collections of artifacts, 

collections of samples for radiocarbon, 

archaeomagnetic, pollen, and flotation 

analyses, and

limited excavations. 

Studies may be conducted for the following 

purposes:

to obtain critical data relevant to 

research objectives, 

to assess site protection and stabilization 

needs, and

to support interpretive planning 

for properties also allocated to public 

use.

Research plans would ensure that most 

architectural features and cultural deposits 

remain intact at habitation sites with multiple 

rooms. Protection would remain a priority for 

sites that have been allocated to scientific 

uses. 

Assign a high priority for detailed 

documentation to the following sites:

Pueblo la Plata, Fort Silver, Baby 

Canyon Pueblo, and Pueblo Pato. 

Rock art sites on Black Mesa and along 

Baby Canyon and Perry Tank Canyon 

on Perry Mesa. 

The remnants of the historic Richinbar 

Mine water delivery system in the Agua 

Fria River Canyon. 

Allocate specific sites to public use within 

Special Cultural Resource Management Areas.

The degrees of interpretive development within 

these areas would be consistent with relatively 

High or Moderate levels of use. Sites would not 

be allocated to public use within areas set aside

for low use. Actions that could be implemented 

at or near selected sites in each level of use area 

are described as follows.

Potential Management Actions for Special 

Cultural Resource Management Areas

High Public Use

Building visitor facilities, which may 

include gravel parking areas, restrooms, 

picnic tables, trash receptacles, and 

benches.

Improving routes with signs installed 

along vehicle routes to direct visitors to 

interpreted sites and visitor facilities.

Routes would not be paved. 

Closing routes within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of 

sites, with single- and two-track routes 

converted to non-motorized use to 

improve visitor flow and site protection. 

Establishing hardened walking trails. 

Installing interpretive signs and visitor 

register boxes. 

Conducting limited excavations, 

backfilling pueblo rooms, or 

stabilizing walls to protect or display 

portions of sites. 

Establishing interpretive loop trails 

connecting archaeological sites and 

natural features. Non-motorized or 

motorized trail systems could be linked 

to sites in Tonto National Forest. 

Preparing brochures and other 

educational materials or programs 

focused on sites. 
Chapter 2

267

Showing site locations on maps, 

monument brochures, and BLM's 

websites. 

Authorizing commercial and other 

group tours, conducted in accordance 

with special SRPs. 

Moderate Public Use

Installing interpretive signs and visitor 

register boxes. 

Establishing non-motorized trails, 

including hardened walking trails. 

Closing existing trails within 1/4 to 1/2 

mile from sites to vehicles and 

converting to non-motorized use to 

improve site protection. 

Producing fact sheets or brochures. 

Providing limited publicity and limited 

access for commercial tours. 

Placing emphasis on conveying an 

experience of discovery. 

Low Public Use

Allocating no sites to public use for 

interpretive development.

Installing no interpretive signs or 

facilities.

Building no trails.

Developing no fact sheets or interpretive 

media about specific sites.

Issuing no special recreation permits for 

commercial tours.

Publicizing and showing no sites on 

maps and brochures. 

Allowing hikers and other visitors to 

experience a sense of discovery by 

encountering and observing 

undeveloped sites in pristine settings. 

Administrative Actions

Conduct field inventories to identify significant 

resources in the geographic ―data gap‖ north of 

Perry Mesa.

Conduct a Class III survey of 500 acres at the 

north end of Black Mesa to complete a 100 

percent level of inventory coverage of the mesa, 

which north of Sunset Canyon.

Conduct Class III surveys of corridors at least 

200-feet wide along 20 miles of Bloody Basin 

Road, Forest Road 14, and other regularly used 

routes on Perry Mesa.

Conduct Class III surveys of corridors at 

least 1/4 mile wide totaling 12 miles along the 

Agua Fria River, Silver Creek, Sycamore Creek, 

Indian Creek, and Ash Creek. 

Conduct Class III surveys of at least 2,000 acres 

surrounding Pueblo la Plata, Baby Canyon 

Pueblo, and Pueblo Pato. 

Continue to monitor at least 15 pueblo villages 

and rock art sites that are at greatest risk from 

vandalism, with help from partners who may 

include the Civil Air Patrol and volunteers from 

the Arizona Site Steward Program. Develop and 

implement systematic monitoring protocols for 

selected sites. 

Focus monitoring on rock art sites and habitation 

sites with 20 or more rooms, particularly 

sites within 1/2 mile of travel routes. This 

strategy conforms to the results of a vandalism 

study by BLM and Tonto National Forest 

(Ahlstrom and others 1992).

Develop and maintain an active program of 

public education on the nature and values of the 

monument‘s cultural resources and the need to 

preserve them. Assist BLM‘s National Heritage 

Education Program and its partner organizations 

in pursuing and implementing grants to produce 

educational materials.

Actively pursue partnerships with professional 

and avocational organizations, academic 

institutions, tribal governments, and 

other entities for an orderly process of cultural 

research, recordation, and education.

Coordinate with tribes and Tonto National 

Forest to prepare an ethno-historical study of the 

history of Native American uses and heritage 

values in the Perry Mesa National Register 

District.
Chapter 2

268

2.7.2.7 Recreation Resources

Commercial permits are issued to qualified 

applicants on a first-come, first-served basis 

based on monument values and how they meet 

resource and public health and safety concerns.

Competitive and organized group and event 

activity permits are issued on a case-by-case 

basis based on monument values and how they 

meet resource and public health and safety 

concerns.

Permit allocations for commercial and organized 

groups and events could be adjusted based on 

monitoring of areas to be used, to accurately 

accommodate level of use, to sustain monument 

objects and resources while maintaining desired 

social and managerial settings.

Recreation within the monument boundaries 

would focus on activities or experiences that 

depend on the monument's resources and cannot 

readily be obtained elsewhere. Recreation uses 

that do not depend on the lands within the 

monument would be encouraged to move to 

other BLM-managed lands. Emphasis would be 

placed on maintaining ecological resources by 

monitoring and managing recreation uses. 

It is highly desirable that the public understand 

its role in sustaining the monument‘s 

archaeological, historical, and biological 

resources. Partnerships with adjacent 

communities would play a vital role in realizing 

the monument's DFC. Through these 

partnerships, members of these 

communities could explore ways to benefit 

socially and economically from public lands by 

offering needed services while still protecting 

monument values.

The emphasis of recreation management on 

monument lands would be guided under 

provisions presented for a Special Recreation 

Management Area containing three Recreation 

Management Zones (RMZs). The RMZ 

allocations are as follows: Front Country, Back 

Country, and Passage.

Land Use Allocation

Front Country Recreation Management Zone 

Desired Future Condition 

This zone will be the focal point for both 

motorized and non-motorized visitation, 

concentrating public access, recreation activities, 

development along major travel routes, and 

more intensively visited use areas. The Front 

Country RMZ will contain more developed 

opportunities, such as interpretive opportunities 

at popular sites, and supporting recreation 

facilities where intensive management is 

needed. Management will place an emphasis on 

maintaining public access to the Front 

Country RMZ for public use, while maintaining 

the integrity of monument resources and values.

Some areas may be designated as day use to 

promote visitor safety, and for resource 

protection.

Desired recreation opportunity experiences, and 

settings within the Front Country RMZ will 

range between rural, roaded-natural, and semiprimitive motorized. Both day use and 

overnight recreation uses will be acceptable 

unless otherwise specified in the land-use plan 

allocations. Day-use areas with more intensive 

use will be evaluated and sited within the Front 

Country.

Visual Resource Management DFCs related to 

Recreation can be found in Section 2.7.2.8.

Management Actions

Provide interpretive sites, trails, overlooks and 

other amenities, visitor services where 

appropriate to protect monument resources, or 

enhance public use and enjoyment. Selected 

cultural sites allocated to public-use levels High 

and Moderate would be interpreted for public 

visitation/education. Access to improvements 

may include development of non-motorized 

trails of dirt, pavement, or other hard surfaces in 

order to assist visitor travel and minimize 

disturbance to cultural and natural resources.
Chapter 2

269

Management Actions related to motorized and 

non-motorized recreation routes are described in 

the Travel Management Section 2.7.2.10.

Land Use Allocation

Back Country Recreation Management Zone 

Desired Future Condition 

This zone will provide an undeveloped, 

primitive, and self-directed visitor experience 

and landscape setting without provisions for 

motorized or mechanical access. The 

management emphasis will be to preserve 

natural, undeveloped landscapes. Back 

Country will be managed to maintain a natural 

landscape character. The Back Country RMZ 

will provide opportunities for adventure, 

challenge, solitude, and discovery. Facilities 

will be minimal: provided only where vital for 

resource protection or public safety, or for 

approved administrative purposes. Facilities 

will generally be limited to trails, signs and other 

amenities, which are essential to the protection 

of monument resources. Maintaining the 

integrity of the monument values and resources 

is integral to any activity.

The desired recreation settings and associated 

experiences within this zone are mainly semiprimitive and non-motorized. The Back 

Country RMZ will offer non-motorized access 

and recreation opportunities within primitive 

settings, where self-reliant and properly 

equipped visitors can experience solitude.

Encounters with other users will be lower than 

in the Front Country RMZ. Recreation 

experiences will be primitive, with hunting, 

hiking, backpacking, wildlife observation, 

cultural study, photography, and camping as the 

main activities. Trail and cross-country foot or 

horseback travel may be permitted.

Visual Resource Management DFCs related to 

Recreation can be found in Section 2.7.2.8.

Management Actions

Management Actions related to motorized and 

non-motorized recreation routes are described in 

the Travel Management Section 2.7.2.10.

Land Use Allocation

Passage Recreation Management Zone 

Desired Future Condition 

The Passage RMZ includes secondary travel 

routes and associated areas where visitor use 

will not be directed or encouraged but will be 

accommodated. Rudimentary facilities, such 

as the following could be provided or available 

where needed for resource protection or public 

safety: 

toilets, 

designated or dispersed primitive 

campsites, 

scenic turnouts, 

kiosks, 

interpretive sites, 

signs, 

parking and staging areas, and

trailheads. 

This zone will center on the designated 

motorized travel and transportation network 

within the Back Country RMZ. The 

Passage RMZ will be 200 feet-wide, 100 feet on 

each side of the centerline of designated vehicle 

routes.

Desired recreation opportunities, experiences, 

and settings within the Passage RMZ will range 

from roaded-natural to semi-primitive 

motorized. Both day use and overnight 

recreation use will be acceptable, unless 

otherwise specified in the land use plan 

allocations. Archaeological sites 

allocated to Moderate public use could be 

interpreted within this zone.

Visual Resource Management DFCs related to 

Recreation can be found in Section 2.7.2.8.
Chapter 2

270

Management Actions

Management Actions related to motorized and 

non-motorized recreation routes are described in 

the Travel Management Section 2.7.2.10.

General Recreation Management

Management Actions

Paintball activities would be prohibited within 

the monument.

Geocaching would be prohibited in areas 

managed for primitive or semi-primitive nonmotorized settings. Caches would not 

be allowed within archaeological sites.

Equestrian use would be monitored and 

managed to meet Arizona Land Health 

Standards (Land Health Standards).

Horses or other stock animals would 

be prohibited at signed archaeological sites.

The use of weed-free feed would be encouraged 

to prevent introducing noxious, invasive weeds.

Camping and Parking:

Camping would be limited to 14 days within the 

monument unless authorized by the manager.

Visitors wishing to camp and park along 

designated roads and primitive routes will be 

strongly encouraged through visitor information, 

education, and signing to select and use sites 

with clear evidence of prior use. Such evidence 

is indicated by easy vehicle access to the site, 

lack of vegetation, bare and compacted soils and 

other evidence of prior use like fire rings. If 

such areas are to be closed to camping and 

rehabilitated, signs will be posted to that effect. 

Collection of Natural Resources:

Collecting all natural organic and natural 

inorganic materials (except for fish and wildlife 

taken in accordance with state law and trash and 

litter) within the monument would be prohibited 

except for scientific, research and other preapproved purposes by obtaining written approval 

from the field office manager or the monument's 

manager. (See the Biological Resources 

discussion in the Management Common to Agua 

Fria National Monument section of this chapter.)

Adaptive Management:

Adopt limits of acceptable change indicators and 

standards.

New forms of recreation opportunities and 

technological advances affecting the 

monument's values would be managed to protect 

the monument's resources. If use is perceived as 

inconsistent with or deleterious to the 

monument, this activity would be suspended 

until data is collected and analyzed and the 

monument's manager makes a final 

recommendation based on research findings.

Establish criteria through external collaboration 

to determine when monument's values are at risk 

and to adjust on-the-ground management 

strategies and actions.

The current authority for collection of recreation 

user fees would not allow for collection of such 

fees on the Agua Fria National Monument.

Under the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act of 2004, P.L.108-447, fees 

may be charged at a site that has:

clearly defined access points and area 

boundaries, 

substantial expenditure in operations 

and maintenance costs, 

significant investment in facilities 

(including roads and trails), and

contains all of the following amenities: 

o a designated and developed 

parking area, 

o permanent toilet, 

o permanent trash receptacle,

o kiosks, 

o picnic tables, and

o security services commensurate 

with use levels. 
Chapter 2

271

Should the above criteria be met in the future, a 

study would be initiated to determine the need 

and feasibility of charging a recreation use fee.

Special Recreation Permits:

Issuing of SRPs is at the discretion of BLM.

BLM's evaluation of permit applications would 

be based on applicable laws and regulations and 

would conform to the Monument Proclamation

(Appendix A). The decision to authorize a 

proposed use would depend on the following:

potential resource impacts, 

conflicts with other users, 

health and safety concerns, 

past or present performance with BLM 

or other agencies, 

BLM's ability to timely process the 

application and effectively administer 

the permit, and

the number of permits issued during the 

365 days (one year) prior to permit 

application. 

Leases and Land Use Permits:

Recreation concession leases, long-term 

authorizations for the use of public lands, are 

authorized under 43 CFR 2920. BLM would 

evaluate concession leases on a case-by-case 

basis to determine whether they conform to the 

monument values. The proposed concession 

would need to conform to the managerial and 

social settings as described in the document such 

as recreation settings, VRM, and other special 

use area prescriptions.

Apiary permits would be prohibited within 1/4 

mile of identified high-use areas, such as 

facilities, trailheads, and areas subject to SRP 

events, or at active scientific and research areas.

Commercial filming or still photography 

requiring a permit in accordance with Public 

Law 106-206 would be issued under the SRP 

guidelines when associated with permitted 

recreation activities. BLM would evaluate 

applications on a case-by-case basis to 

determine whether they are consistent with 

monument values. The fee schedule would be 

used as outlined in 43 CFR 2920 commercial 

filming regulations. Non-recreation related 

commercial filming will be managed by the 

appropriate 2920 guidelines.

Administrative Actions

Develop partnerships and identify sustaining 

recreation and tourism-based economic 

opportunities with communities.

Support collaborative efforts with the 

public on monument issues and efforts.

Post a toll-free phone number for the BLM's 

dispatch office on kiosks, maps, brochures,

permits, and other public outreach conveyances 

to keep the public involved in reporting 

emergencies and criminal activities, including 

damage to the monument's resources.

SRP applicants would be strongly encouraged to 

have a working knowledge of Leave No Trace 

or Tread Lightly principles. Additionally, 

applicants would be asked to incorporate Leave 

No Trace and Tread Lightly principles into their 

tour, program, or event activities.

To the greatest extent possible, all new 

construction and modifications for recreation 

facilities, outdoor developed areas, and any 

related programs and activities will be accessible 

to people with disabilities in accordance with the 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, with later

amendments. Guidance, requirements, and 

standards applicable to conform to the above 

legislation may be found in the following: 

Uniform Federal Accessibility 

Standards. 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines. 

ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines 

(use whichever guidance is most 

stringent). 

Proposed Outdoor Developed Areas 

Guidelines -U.S. Access Board found at 

www.access-board.gov and 43 CFR Part 
Chapter 2

272

17, Subpart E found at 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.htm 

Interpretation and Environmental Education

Pursue interpretation and environmental 

educational opportunities, outreach 

development, and implementation of on-site and 

off-site programs for adults and children.

Establish repository of photographs and 

images that will illustrate BLM‘s mission, 

including digital photographs and slides for 

program design.

Apply learning modalities and incorporate 

various learning styles in program design and 

delivery.

Encourage the use of multiple intelligence or 

other theories for program presentations.

Develop school curricula focusing on the BLM's 

mission with willing staff from schools, school 

districts, and other learning institutions.

Support existing educational and interpretive 

programs and initiatives such as Project 

Archaeology; Leave No Trace; Tread Lightly; 

Project Learning Tree; and other proven 

national, State, regional, and local programs.

Develop websites, brochures, maps, access 

guides, and information sheets to publicize OHV 

rules and regulations, with an emphasis on 

Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly practices.

2.7.2.8 Visual Resources

Desired Future Conditions related to achieving 

Recreation related DFCs by Recreation 

Management Zone

Front Country

Visual resource objectives would emphasize 

retaining the current natural vistas while 

allowing visually sensitive visitor-related 

development.

Back Country

Visual resource objectives in this zone will 

emphasize retaining the current visual 

landscapes and vistas.

Passage

VRM objectives would emphasize retaining the 

current natural vistas while allowing visually 

sensitive visitor-related development.

Management Actions

Manage the visual landscape to minimize visual 

impacts of authorized activities. As much as 

possible, maintain night skies free of light 

pollution. Work with surrounding communities 

and other agencies to minimize the impact of 

lighting.

2.7.2.9 Mineral Resource 

Management

Management Actions

All Federal minerals in Agua Fria National 

Monument would remain withdrawn or closed 

from all forms of location, sale, or leasing, 

including withdrawn from location, entry, and 

patent under the mining laws. Federal minerals 

are also withdrawn from disposition under all 

laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing 

and from disposal under the Mineral Materials 

Act. Mineral interests may be exchanged if such 

exchange furthers the protective purposes of the 

monument. Any mineral interests acquired by 

the United States within the monument are 

reserved as part of the monument and are subject 

to the aforementioned withdrawals.

For lands encumbered by mining claims, no 

activity beyond casual use, as defined in the 43 

CFR 3809 regulations, is allowed without 

determination of valid existing rights. A mining 

plan of operations is required for any activities 

beyond casual use.
Chapter 2

273

2.7.2.10 Travel Management

Land Use Allocations

Motorized and mechanized uses on all 

monument lands will be Limited to Designated 

Routes only.

Limited to Designated Routes = 70,900 acres

Desired Future Conditions

Define, designate, implement, and monitor 

a comprehensive travel management network 

affording a range of high-quality and diverse 

motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities. The network would consist of a 

system of roads, primitive roads, and trails. The 

designated travel management network and 

associated recreation opportunities would be 

consistent with all monument resource 

management objectives, recreation settings, and 

preservation of monument objects.

Management Actions

All motorized vehicles and mechanized 

equipment would be limited to designated 

routes, except in emergency situations.

Motorized use shall keep within the designated 

route with reasonable use of the shoulder and 

immediate roadside, allowing for vehicle 

passage, emergency stopping, or parking unless 

otherwise posted.

Vehicle access on designated routes may be 

temporarily closed when weather creates muddy 

conditions. When conditions are such that travel 

by vehicle cannot be accomplished without 

damaging the existing roadway, departing the 

roadway and traveling across cross-country, the 

route is closed until the roadway can once again 

support a vehicle without damage.

All vehicles would be limited to designated 

routes. Cross-country motorized vehicle or 

mechanized equipment travel would 

be prohibited except in response to emergencies, 

or for BLM- or interagency-authorized tasks.

Mechanized or motorized vehicles would not be 

used off designated routes to retrieve game. 

Non-motorized wheeled game-carriers would 

be permitted to travel cross-country. 

All uses of routes, whether motorized or nonmotorized would be mitigated where it is 

determined to be inconsistent with established 

monument management objectives or such use is 

harming monument resources. Possible 

mitigation measures may include the following:

closing routes, 

limiting seasonal use, 

limiting vehicle types, speeds, and 

noise, 

rerouting offending route segments, and

modifying routes to reduce or eliminate 

conflicts. 

Vehicle routes would receive the least amount of 

maintenance needed to provide desired access.

Many routes would be retained in a primitive 

condition to discourage excessive speeds so as to 

protect monument values and promote public 

safety.

Currently, the AFNM is outside the PM10

Serious Non-attainment area around Phoenix. In 

the future, if included in this area, routes would 

be managed to comply with PM10 rules. 

Managing dust would be part of the monument‘s 

ongoing monitoring effort. Proposed mitigation 

actions (closure, seasonal restrictions, speed 

limits, change in use, surfacing, surface and dust 

abatement treatments) would be addressed as 

part of the adaptive management for Travel 

Management. Routes with unacceptable or 

noncompliant use and associated air quality 

impacts would be closed to travel until route 

conditions change or are corrected.

Interconnecting routes could be developed 

where feasible and consistent with resource 

management goals and monument values.

Vehicle routes may be developed if needed for 

protection of monument resources, visitor 

education and appreciation, and visitor safety. 
Chapter 2

274

All vehicle route construction must be consistent 

with other resource objectives, desired social 

and managerial settings, and VRM objectives.

Management Actions Specific to Recreation 

Management Zones

Front Country

Maintaining, enhancing, or developing routes for 

non-motorized and motorized visitor travel may 

be done within the Front Country RMZ if such 

actions further protect monument resources, 

ensure public safety, or to achieve land-use plan 

objectives. All closed vehicle routes may be 

considered for redevelopment as hiking, 

equestrian and/or mechanized vehicle trails.

Back Country

Non-motorized access may include development 

of some trails, or simply marking foot routes 

with fiberglass posts with minimal ground 

disturbance. Installation of trails may be 

considered where needed to protect monument 

resources, ensure public safety, or to further 

public education and interpretation objectives.

Non-motorized trails may be evaluated for their 

potential to link areas of interest and provide a 

network of connecting trails. Such areas may 

include the following:

Bull Tank and Baby Canyon, 

Badger Springs/Agua Fria Confluence 

and Pueblo Pato, and

the Black Canyon City area into the 

southern part of Black Mesa. 

Motor vehicle travel routes entering or 

traversing the Back County RMZ will 

be managed under the Passage RMZ 

provisions. All vehicles are restricted to 

passage zones.

Passage

Designated routes would be maintained at their 

current condition except where resource 

degradation or user conflicts occur. No routes 

will be upgraded, but routes would be minimally 

maintained to current standards. Routes would 

be maintained for the following reasons:

to ensure access by authorized users 

such as BLM's permittees and lessees, 

to allow access for wildlife enhancement 

and maintenance projects, 

to ensure public safety by correcting 

hazardous conditions, 

to protect monument values, and

to mitigate resource damage.

No new motorized routes would be built except 

for the following reasons:

to protect monument values, 

to mitigate resource conflicts or damage, 

to correct hazardous travel conditions, 

and

to meet other resource management 

objectives. 

Any rerouting or building of vehicle routes must 

be consistent with protecting the monument 

resources and must meet management

objectives.

2.7.3 Management Common 

to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area

2.7.3.1 Special Area 

Designations

Designated Wilderness Areas

Management Actions

Within wilderness areas and in the absence of 

group size limitations in existing wilderness or 

activity plans, group size for casual use activities 

will be limited to 25 people. BLM would 

evaluate requests for groups of more than 25 

people on a case-by-case basis to ensure that 

resources are protected. Groups exceeding 

25 people would require prior written 

authorization from the authorized officer. A 
Chapter 2

275

SRP would be required for groups over 50 

people.

Commercial recreation and vending 

operations would not be allowed in the 

Harquahala Mountains, Hummingbird Springs, 

and Big Horn Mountains Wilderness Areas, 

(including, but not limited to, such activities as 

guided horse rides or guided hikes) except 

for guided hunt and outfitter services.

Organized would be allowed on a case-by-case 

basis when consistent with wilderness 

management objectives. Commercial recreation 

operations may be allowed in the Hassayampa 

River Canyon and Hells Canyon Wilderness 

Areas when such activities conform 

to wilderness management plans, resource 

protection, and wilderness management 

objectives, and may be performed to the extent 

necessary for activities which are proper for 

realizing the recreational or other wilderness 

purposes of the areas.

Wilderness areas are allocated as closed to 

motorized vehicles. Exceptions to this 

closure could be allowed for such wildlife 

management activities when approved by the 

BLM's manager, and when such motorized and 

mechanized equipment is determined to be the 

minimum tool needed to do the job.

Motorized activities will be evaluated on a caseby-case basis as the need arises in the Big Horn

Mountains, Hummingbird Springs, and 

Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Areas.

Existing wilderness management plans will 

guide wildlife management within Hells Canyon 

and Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness 

Areas.

Develop and adopt measurement standards for 

limits of acceptable change for trail conditions, 

visitor-to-visitor encounters, vegetation changes, 

Arizona Land Health Standards (Land Health 

Standards), and approved motorized/mechanized 

activities. Exceeding the limits of acceptable 

change could result in implementing actions 

such as the following:

developing and distributing Leave-NoTrace or other educational information, 

initiating a permit system, 

closing damaged areas or trails to 

camping to allow natural restoration, 

realigning trails, 

reclaiming damaged areas, 

installing alternative access points, 

monitoring or removing non-native or 

invasive plants or animals, and

mitigating the evidence (sights and 

sounds) of any authorized 

mechanized/mechanical uses. 

Harquahala Mountain Summit Back Country 

Byway

Management Actions

Maintain the Harquahala Mountain Summit 

Back Country Byway and facilities to current 

standards and conditions. Management is 

currently conducted under an activity plan and 

portions of that plan not superseded by this 

Resource Management Plan will continue as 

valid guidance for management of the Back 

Country Byway.

2.7.3.2 Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Decisions

Management Actions

Lands are to be considered for potential 

acquisition under all Alternatives. Some of the 

criteria for selecting such lands (willing seller) 

are specific to each Alternative's resource 

program objectives. Other criteria are identified 

under the Lands and Realty discussion of the 

Management Common to Both Planning Areas 

section of this chapter. No land disposal 

management prescriptions are common to all 

Action Alternatives.

BLM would initiate a withdrawal, which would 

close to mineral location, mineral leasing, and 

mineral sales and prohibit all land use 

authorizations on 20 acres of public land in Lot 

21, eastern half of the southwest quarter of 
Chapter 2

276

Section 6, Township 8N, Range 5W, for the 

BLM-Wickenburg fire station.

Land Use Allocation

Utility and Transportation Corridors

Management Actions

The existing corridors contain many major 

transportation facilities and are major multipleuse corridors. They also house utilities at or 

above the threshold levels cited in the Lands and 

Realty discussion under Management Common 

to Both Planning Areas section of this 

chapter. Certain State routes, U.S. routes, or 

interstate highways would be designated as 

transportation corridors rather than multiplepurpose corridors. This designation would result 

because no current or projected demand exists 

for other utilities that would meet the threshold 

levels within these corridors.

All major utilities would be routed through 

designated corridors.

Land Use Allocation

Communication Sites

Management Actions

In accordance with the Telecommunications Act 

of 1996, BLM planning for communication 

infrastructure must help facilitate the 

implementing of wireless telephone systems by 

making Federal lands and facilities available for 

communication sites.

BLM will retain the designated White Tank 

Mountains, Lone Mountain, Burnt Mountain, 

Harquahala Mountain, Valencia, and Black 

Canyon City communication sites.

Other Land Use Authorizations

Land Use Permits for non-recreation related 

commercial filming will be authorized in 

conformance with 43 CFR 2920 guidelines.

Administrative Actions

BLM would, as appropriate, coordinate 

communication-related planning efforts with the 

FCC.

2.7.3.3 Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Administrative Actions

Initiate steps with the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and Maricopa 

County Environmental Services Department to 

install and operate air pollution monitors near 

Lake Pleasant, or an alternate location that is 

experiencing high emission rates of particulate 

matter (PM10). 

Maintain and enhance stream flows in special 

management areas.

2.7.3.4 Biological Resources

Management Actions

Limit firewood collection to campfire use only. 

Allow collection of dead, down, and detached 

material for campfire firewood. 

Include in fuel reduction projects provisions for 

permitting firewood collection on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Limit collecting of cacti skeletons, ironwood, 

and mesquite for personal use to 100 pounds per 

person per year. 

Prohibit collecting cacti skeletons, ironwood, 

mesquite, and any other plant or plant product 

for commercial purposes. 

Allow collecting of plant materials for scientific 

purposes with prior authorization. 

Prohibit removal of all other vegetation material 

not specifically authorized by permit. 
Chapter 2

277

Coordinate vegetation salvage with the State of 

Arizona, and to the extent practicable, open it to 

the public. 

2.7.3.5 Cultural Resources

Focus proactive (Section 110) inventories on 

areas defined as Special Cultural Resource 

Management Areas. Complete at least 200 acres 

of proactive survey, distributed among one or 

more of these areas during each fiscal year (See 

Appendix F for a description of these areas).

Retain in public ownership BLM-managed lands

within Special Cultural Resource Management 

Areas. Conduct Class III surveys on 10 percent 

of zones above 3,500 feet in elevation, which are 

the target areas for prescribed burns and other 

fuel treatment projects. Focus surveys on areas 

that are most likely to contain flammable 

historic structures, as identified by documentary 

research, to develop measures to protect these 

sites during fuel treatment projects. 

Continue to monitor at least 25 sites, which are 

at greatest risk from vandalism or disturbance, 

with help from such partners as Arizona Site 

Steward Program Volunteers. 

Allocate properties from the following classes of 

prehistoric sites to scientific use: 

pueblos and other residential sites, 

hilltop "forts" and masonry structures, 

pit house villages, 

rock art localities, 

caves and rock shelters, 

agricultural features, 

wells and water control features; and

roasting pits, 

trails and camps, 

resource processing sites, 

rock features and alignments, 

intaglios ("ground figures"), 

lithic quarries, 

grinding implement production sites , 

artifact scatters that can yield important 

information and meet the Arizona State 

Museum definition of a "site" as 

opposed to an isolated occurrence. 

Allocate properties from the following classes of 

historic sites to scientific use: 

mines, mills, and associated features, 

settlements and camps, 

rock walls and features, 

ranches, homesteads, and associated 

features , 

livestock driveways, roads, and trails, 

other public works,

facilities used in commerce, 

sites of military activities , 

agricultural features, 

wells and water control features, and

artifact scatters that can yield important 

information and meet the Arizona State 

Museum (ASM) definition of a ―site‖ as 

opposed to an isolated occurrence. 

Allocations and Management Actions: Special 

Cultural Resource Management Areas

Eight areas are regarded as Special Cultural 

Resource Management Areas, common to all 

plan Alternatives. These areas contain 

significant resources that, in many cases, are at 

risk of damage (Appendix F). Management 

actions within priority areas will be incorporated 

into annual work planning for the PD's Cultural 

Heritage Program. As described below, selected 

sites are allocated to the categories of 

conservation for future use, scientific use, and 

public use. For further information on these use 

categories and associated actions, refer to 

Appendix E. 

Black Mesa/Bumble Bee

Protect significant prehistoric and historic 

archaeological sites, which are allocated to 

conservation and scientific uses. Ongoing 

scientific studies of occupation and use during 

multiple time periods, particularly the highly 

significant period from A.D. 900-1250, before 

the Perry Mesa Tradition in nearby Agua Fria 

National Monument.

Prepare and submit the required documentation 

to nominate a "Black Mesa Rim" archaeological 
Chapter 2

278

district to the National Register of Historic 

Places.

Conduct cultural resource inventories (surveys) 

to obtain critical information needed to identify 

significant sites, allocate these sites to use 

categories, and integrate survey results into 

protective strategies and research designs.

Identify survey areas in reference to geographic 

gaps in previous coverage and the likelihood of 

finding significant sites at risk, including sites 

next to travel routes. 

Continue to patrol at least three major sites with 

the help of volunteer site stewards. 

Allocate the Running Deer site (NA 5856) and 

Archaic site AZ N:16:224 (ASM) to scientific 

use for study by qualified researchers. 

Install protective signs at the Running Deer site 

and associated sites. 

Install fences or barriers to exclude livestock 

from the Running Deer site. 

Close or reroute transportation routes that lead 

directly to significant sites. 

Galena Gulch 

Conduct cultural resource inventories (surveys) 

to obtain critical information needed to identify 

significant sites, allocate them to use categories, 

and integrate survey results into protective 

strategies and research designs. Identify survey 

areas in reference to geographic gaps in previous 

coverage and the likelihood of finding 

significant sites at risk, including sites next to 

travel routes. 

Patrol at least three major sites with the help of 

volunteer site stewards. 

Allocate the historic McCabe Cemetery to 

"conservation for future use" to ensure longterm preservation. 

Allocate the Humboldt Ruin (NA 4637) to 

scientific use.

Install signs and other suitable protection 

measures at the Humboldt Ruin and selected 

sites.

Maintain the barbed wire fence and erosion 

control features at the McCabe Cemetery. 

Black Canyon Corridor 

Conduct cultural resource inventories (surveys) 

to obtain critical information needed to identify 

significant sites, allocate them to use categories, 

and integrate survey results into protective 

strategies and research designs. Identify survey 

areas in reference to geographic gaps in previous 

coverage and the likelihood of finding 

significant sites at risk, including sites next to 

travel routes. 

Continue to patrol at least five major sites with 

the help of volunteer site stewards. 

Complete site documentation projects at the 

DeNoyelles site (AZ N:12:60 (ASM)) and 

Spring Pueblo prehistoric habitation sites that 

have been damaged by vandalism. Use the 

information to assess and implement measures 

to reduce further architectural deterioration. 

Allocate the Euler Site, the Spanish Hill Fort, 

the DeNoyelles site, and Spring Pueblo to 

scientific use for study by qualified researchers. 

Maintain or install signs at AZ N:12:60 (ASM), 

Spring Pueblo, Spanish Hill Fort, and other sites. 

Close or reroute transportation routes that lead 

directly to significant sites. 

Preserve the remaining historical signs and 

features of the historic Black Canyon Livestock 

Driveway and allocate them to public use to 

interpret the stock driveway‘s history. 

Allocate to public use selected sites that are 

accessible from the Black Canyon Hiking and 

Equestrian Trail. Local site types suitable for 
Chapter 2

279

public use include hilltop structures, rock art, 

historic mining camps and ranching facilities, 

and historic trails. This allocation will be 

applied to selected sites that 

have aboveground features amenable to 

interpretive development,

can be stabilized to withstand public 

visitation, and

would be of interest as exhibits-inplace.

Associated actions may include interpretive 

signs, trails, brochures, 

and authorizing commercial tours. 

Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria 

Conduct cultural resource inventories (surveys) 

to obtain critical information needed to identify 

significant sites, allocate them to use categories, 

and integrate survey results into protective 

strategies and research designs. Identify survey 

areas in reference to geographic gaps in previous 

coverage and the likelihood of finding 

significant sites at risk, including sites next to 

travel routes. 

Acquire the portions of the historic Gillette site 

that are outside federally administered lands.

Continue to patrol at least six major sites with 

the help of volunteer site stewards. 

Complete site documentation projects with 

scientific use allocations at the Agua Fria Fort, 

Fort Tule, and AZ T:4:1 (PC), a hilltop site near 

Lake Pleasant. Alternatives B, C, and E allocate 

these sites to public use for long-term 

preservation and interpretation. 

Maintain protective fences at Gillette, and sites 

associated with the Agua Fria Fort. 

Maintain or install protective signs on at least 

five sites. 

Coordinate with the Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) and Lake Pleasant Regional Park staff in 

resource protection and public education.

Cooperate in nominating the historic Humbug 

hydraulic mining complex to the National 

Register of Historic Places. Under all 

Alternatives except Alternative D allocate the 

Humbug site to public use for long-term 

preservation and interpretation. 

Wickenburg/Vulture 

Conduct cultural resource inventories (surveys) 

to obtain critical information needed to identify 

significant sites, allocate them to use categories, 

and integrate survey results into protective 

strategies and research designs. Identify survey 

areas in reference to geographic gaps in previous 

coverage and the likelihood of finding 

significant sites at risk, including sites next to 

travel routes. 

Patrol at least three major sites with the help of 

volunteer site stewards. 

Allocate the Vulture City Cemetery and historic 

engineering features along Constellation Road to 

"conservation for future use" to ensure longterm preservation. Ensure that road maintenance 

activities are implemented, to the extent 

possible, to preserve and stabilize the historic 

structural features of Constellation Road. 

Allocate the unique San Domingo Mill site to 

scientific use, and complete a detailed 

documentation of the site. 

Maintain the protective fence around the Vulture 

City Cemetery. 

Under all Alternatives except Alternative D, 

allocate the Vulture City Cemetery, 

Constellation Road, and Monte Cristo Mine to 

public use for tours, interpretive development, or 

both.

Weaver/Octave 

Continue to patrol at least two major sites with 

the help of volunteer site stewards. 

Allocate the historic Weaver Cemetery to 

"conservation for future use." 
Chapter 2

280

Maintain the fence installed around the Weaver 

Cemetery. 

Assess the condition of the rock cabin and other 

historic structures at Weaver and the feasibility 

of stabilization and allocation to public use. 

Allocate historic mining sites and settlements to 

scientific use.

Under Alternatives B and E, allocate the historic 

Weaver Cemetery to public use. Install one or 

more interpretive signs outside the fence. 

Harcuvar Mountains 

Conduct cultural resource inventories (surveys) 

to obtain critical information needed to identify 

significant sites, allocate them to use categories, 

and integrate survey results into protective 

strategies and research designs. Identify survey 

areas in reference to geographic gaps in previous 

coverage and the likelihood of finding 

significant sites at risk, including sites next to 

travel routes. 

Allocate pictograph sites (i.e. painted rock art) to 

―conservation for future use‖ for long-term 

preservation. 

Patrol at least one site with the help of volunteer 

site stewards.

Coordinate with the Lake Havasu Field Office in 

developing strategies to manage cultural 

resources in the Harcuvar Mountains. 

Harquahala Mountains 

Acquire parcels with significant sites around 

Eagle Eye Peak, which is south of Aguila. 

Conduct cultural resource inventories (surveys) 

to obtain critical information needed to identify 

significant sites, allocate them to use categories, 

and integrate survey results into protective 

strategies and research designs. Identify survey 

areas in reference to geographic gaps in previous 

coverage and the likelihood of finding 

significant sites at risk, including sites next to 

travel routes. 

Continue to patrol at least two major sites with 

the help of volunteer site stewards. Add sites in 

selected canyons to the monitoring program. 

Allocate the Harquahala Peak Smithsonian 

Observatory to "conservation for future use" and 

public use. Continue to maintain the condition 

of the building to ensure its long-term integrity.

Continue to maintain the associated interpretive 

signs and visitor facilities. Allocate the historic 

Harquahala Peak Pack Trail to public use.

Allocate sites associated with the observatory 

and prehistoric sites in selected canyons to 

scientific use. Complete recording and 

documentation of site concentrations in selected 

canyons and near springs.

2.7.3.6 Recreation Resources

The Desired Future Condition and management 

actions that follow will apply to all public lands, 

including those within MUs in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, unless superseded by 

management actions for SRMAs, RMZs, or 

other land use allocations. Where management 

actions in SRMAs, RMZs, or other land use

allocations are silent on the subjects listed 

below, the actions listed below will apply.

Land Use Allocation

The designated Wilderness areas will all be 

allocated as Special Recreation Management 

Areas. Wilderness Areas included in this 

planning area are:

Harquahala Mountains Wilderness, 

Hummingbird Springs Wilderness, 

Big Horn Mountains Wilderness, 

Hassayampa River Wilderness, and

Hells Canyon Wilderness. 
Chapter 2

281

Desired Future Conditions

Wilderness areas will be managed for primitive 

settings to preserve their outstanding 

opportunities for solitude, primitive and 

unconfined recreation, and naturalness.

Land Use Allocation

Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

Management Actions

General Recreation

All recreation actions such as facilities, projects, 

programs, amenities, and trails, as described in 

the sections below, would conform to land use 

plans, activity plans, and resource management 

objectives. The proposed actions need to 

conform to the managerial and social settings 

described in the document, such as recreation 

settings, VRM, SRMA, RMZ, lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics, and other 

management prescriptions.

Camping

Dispersed camping would be permitted on all 

planning area lands unless otherwise specifically 

designated as closed or restricted for resource 

protection or public safety purposes.

The current 14-day length of stay camping limit 

would continue to be policy for all public lands 

in the planning area, unless otherwise 

specifically designated or modified 

by management actions in this plan. The 14-day 

limit may be reached by continuously occupying 

one site or by occupying more than one site 

within a 25-mile radius within a 90-day period.

Following the 14-day period, the party may not 

relocate to a campsite within a distance of 25 

miles that was previously occupied, nor may 

they return to any sites previously occupied.

After 14 days, the party may also choose to 

move to a designated camping area or move off 

public land. Extensions beyond the 14-day 

length of stay may be permitted on a case-bycase basis where needed for resource protection 

and land use management provisions.

Designated camping locations and camping 

length of stay limits (long- and short-term) 

would be developed as needed for the following 

purposes:

protecting resources, 

ensuring visitor safety, 

resolving social conflicts, 

improving recreation experiences, and

increasing recreation opportunities. 

All campsite construction or designation would 

be compatible with social and 

managerial recreation settings and VRM 

objectives. Communities, user groups, or 

agency staff can bring camping site proposals 

forward for management attention.

Self-contained or vehicle-based camping would 

be permitted within 100 feet of the centerline of 

designated routes. Visitors camping and parking 

along roads and routes will be strongly 

encouraged through visitor information, 

education and signing to select and use camp 

and parking sites with clear evidence of prior 

use. Such evidence is indicated or evidenced by 

vehicle access to the site, lack of vegetation, 

bare mineral soils and other dispersed campsite 

amenities such as fire rings. 

Campsites would be designated and developed 

at mining sites and prospecting areas when 

needed for resource protection due to trail 

proliferation, loss of soil and vegetation cover, 

public health and safety concerns, or user 

conflicts. 

Any trailhead or staging area could be closed to 

overnight camping upon written authorization of 

the authorized officer.

It is unlawful for a person to camp within 1/4 

mile of a natural water hole containing water or 

man-made watering facility containing water in 

such a place that wildlife or domestic stock will 

be denied access to the only reasonably available 
Chapter 2

282

water (Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, 

Unlawful Camping). 

Group Use (Non-commercial)

Existing vehicle parking and camping sites must 

be large enough to accommodate the group size 

without increasing the footprint of the 

disturbance area. Large group activities and 

events with 75 or more people would require a 

special recreation permit unless otherwise 

specified in special management areas or 

designated sites where carrying capacities are 

established in subsequent implementation level 

plans, or when special management and 

monitoring are determined to be needed.

Group Use in Wilderness (Non-commercial)

Large group activities in wilderness areas would 

be managed consistent with the provisions in 

Section 2.7.3.1 under the discussion of 

Designated Wilderness Areas.

Equestrian Activities

Monitor and manage equestrian use according to 

the Arizona Land Health Standards (Land 

Health Standards).

Encourage the use of weed-free animal feed to 

prevent the introduction of noxious, invasive 

weeds.

Geocaches

The placement of geocaches would be 

prohibited in archaeological and raptor nesting 

sites. Virtual caches may be allowed 

within archaeological sites with prior written 

authorization from the authorized officer.

Other sites may be prohibited if it is determined 

that the placement of these caches creates 

unacceptable resource impacts, conflicts with 

other users or health and safety concerns.

Paintball Activities

Paintball activities would not be allowed in 

wilderness areas and ACECs. Such 

activities would be allowed elsewhere in the 

planning area, if suitable to other resource 

management objectives and special management 

allocations. The following stipulations would 

apply:

Require nontoxic, biodegradable and 

water soluble paintball capsules.

Allow temporary obstacles or 

structures to be used but require that 

they be removed at the end of the visit to 

the public lands. Allow no mechanized 

or motorized cross-country travel to set 

up or remove structures. Authorize no 

permanent structures. 

Require goggles and masks protecting 

the ears, face, and throat. 

Prohibit shooting paintballs at wildlife 

and saguaro cacti. Prohibit the use of 

natural features, such as boulders and 

vegetation, as paintball targets. 

Require participants to pick up and 

remove from the area all items related to 

paintball activities, including capsules 

and any other trash. 

Require SRPs for paintball activities 

with more than 15 participants, unless 

otherwise specified in special 

management areas. 

Prohibit paintball activities within 1/4 

mile of 

o high-use recreation areas such 

as campgrounds, trailheads, and 

staging areas 

o designated non-motorized trails 

o areas with permitted recreation 

activities 

o active scientific and research 

areas 

Rock Collecting

Allow the collecting of rocks, minerals, semiprecious gemstones, invertebrate fossils, and 

petrified wood in reasonable amounts. In BLM 

Arizona, reasonable limits for personal use are 
Chapter 2

283

defined as up to 25 pounds per day, plus one 

piece, with a total of 250 pounds per person per 

year.

Special Recreation Permits 

General 

No permit or event limits would be established 

at this time for the planning area. Allow 

permit and/or event limits to be 

established later in response to monitoring of 

resources, users, or social conflicts.

SRPs would be authorized on a case-by-case 

basis for all recreation activities meeting the 

requirements in 43 CFR 2930 and applicable 

manuals, policies, and guidance. SRPs would 

be required for all commercial or competitive 

use recreation activities. SRPs may also be 

required for the following:

noncommercial, noncompetitive 

organized group activities and events 

vending operations; 

individual noncommercial recreation use 

in Special Area Designations

academic, educational, scientific or 

research uses

The criteria for when permits are required for 

these uses may be found in BLM Manual H2930-1, Recreation Permit Administration 

Manual and Handbook. Definitions of the types 

of uses may be found in the Glossary.

Issuance of SRPs is at BLM's discretion. BLM 

would evaluate permit applications on the basis 

of applicable laws and regulations and 

conformance with existing land use plans, 

including consistency with recreation and other 

resource objectives. The decision to authorize a 

proposed use would depend on the following:

potential resource impacts, 

conflicts with other users, 

health and safety concerns, 

past or present performance with BLM 

or other agencies, and

BLM's ability to timely process the 

application and effectively administer 

the permit. 

Permits would be authorized, ensuring 

compliance with Federal, State, county, and 

local air quality and noise regulations.

Permits are authorized based on the inclusion 

and compliance of standard and activity specific 

stipulations regarding the proposed activities. 

These stipulations for SRPs have been 

developed to protect natural resources, reduce 

user conflicts, and minimize health and safety 

risks. The stipulations must be adhered to keep 

the permit in good standing. Failure to comply 

with the stipulations can result in loss of permit 

privileges and/or lead to penalties prescribed in 

43 CFR 2933.33. An example of these 

stipulations may be found in Appendix K.

Vending

SRPs may be issued for vending operations at a 

recreation site, or in conjunction with a 

permitted activity or event. The SRP for the 

activity or event may include vending operations 

if the operations are directly related to the 

permitted activity or event, and the permittee is 

responsible for the vending operations. If the 

permittee is not responsible for the vending 

operations, a separate SRP for the 

vending would be required.

Vending may be considered at recreation sites if 

the service or goods for sale:

directly enhances the recreation 

experience and

cannot be readily provided by the 

closest local community. 

Permanent structures would not be authorized 

under a vending permit.

Competitive Races

All motorized competitive races would need to 

comply with the desert tortoise policy in 

the Biological Resources discussion of the 
Chapter 2

284

Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives section of this chapter.

Motorized competitive speed races would be 

authorized only in SRMAs or RMZs where an 

allocation for such use has been made.

Leases and Land Use Permits

Concession Leases

Recreation concession leases, long-term 

authorizations for the use of public lands, are 

authorized under 43 CFR 2920. BLM would 

evaluate concession leases on a case-by-case 

basis to determine if they conform to land use 

plans, activity plans, and resource management 

objectives. The proposed lease would need to 

conform to the managerial and social settings 

such as recreation settings, VRM objectives, and 

other special use area prescriptions. A strong 

public demand must also be demonstrated for 

the proposed products or services to be 

considered. Leases would be awarded on a 

competitive bid basis and evaluated by the 

following traits of the concessionaire:

experience, 

ability to provide quality services, 

financial stability and integrity, and

past or present performance and 

financial offer.

Apiary Permits

Apiary (bee keeping) permits will be prohibited 

within 1/4 mile of the following:

high-use recreation areas such as 

campgrounds, trailheads, and staging 

areas, 

designated non-motorized trails,

areas or routes with permitted recreation 

activities, and

active scientific and research areas. 

Commercial Filming Permits

Permits for commercial filming or still 

photography, in accordance with Public Law 

106-206, would be issued under the SRP 

guidelines when associated with permitted 

recreation activities. The fee schedule would be 

used as outlined in 43 CFR 2920 commercial 

filming regulations. Proposals would be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if 

they conform to land use plans, activity plans, 

and resource management objectives. Proposed 

activities would need to conform to the 

managerial and social settings as described in 

the document such as recreation settings, VRM 

objectives, and other special use area 

prescriptions. Land Use Permits for nonrecreation related commercial filming will 

be authorized in conformance with 43 CFR 2920 

guidelines.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Maintain current inventoried recreation settings 

within ERMAs. ROS inventory is portrayed on 

the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum on Map 3-

11. Since the areas allocated as ERMA and 

SRMA change by Alternative, actual desired 

settings also change by Alternative.

Facilities

Recreation management facilities would be 

planned and installed where needed for:

protecting resources, 

providing for visitor safety, 

resolving social conflicts, 

improving the quality of recreation 

experiences, and

increasing recreation opportunities.

Facilities can include water sources, toilets, 

scenic turnouts, cultural interpretive sites, 

kiosks, signs, parking areas, staging areas, and 

trailheads. Installed facilities must be 

compatible with recreation management 

objectives and desired settings and VRM 

standards. Communities, user groups, or agency 

staff can bring facility proposals forward for 

management attention.
Chapter 2

285

Recreational Target Shooting

Recreational target shooting has increased in 

popularity on BLM-managed lands as the 

population in Central Arizona has increased and 

availability of land to shoot on has decreased.

BLM land is, for the most part, open to 

recreational target shooting. Public lands are 

shared by many users. It is imperative the target 

shooter select a shooting site that is both safe to 

other public land users and considerate of 

natural resources. The following discussion 

includes criteria for selection of safe and 

considerate shooting sites.

It is the ultimate responsibility of the 

recreational target shooter to ensure the 

projectiles they fire are contained within the 

shooting site they select. While shooting is 

allowed in most public land areas, the shooter 

should make no concession concerning safety. 

Consideration of other people using public lands 

is not only considerate, Arizona Revised Statutes 

Title 13-1201 says:

(A). A person commits endangerment by 

recklessly endangering another person with a 

substantial risk of imminent death or physical 

injury. 

(B). Endangerment involving a substantial risk 

of imminent death is a class six felony. In all 

other cases, it is a class one misdemeanor. 

Therefore, it is paramount that shooters 

continually evaluate their shooting activities and 

the requirements necessary to ensure those 

activities can be conducted with projectile/bullet 

containment as a primary goal.

General considerations for selecting a suitable 

shooting site include the following:

Make sure you have a safe backstop. 

That means you can see where the 

bullets are hitting behind the target. A 

hill or pushed-up berm of dirt is perfect. 

Remember that bullets can ricochet off 

flat surfaces—that includes rocks, dirt 

and water. Put your targets right in front 

of the backstop to ensure your bullets 

stop in the dirt. (Detailed guidelines for 

backstops and side berms can be found 

below.) 

Select a site that doesn‘t put others at 

risk. Do not shoot towards or across 

areas where other people congregate 

such as hiking trails, vehicle parking and 

staging areas, and trail heads. It is a 

violation of Arizona State law (A.R.S. 

17-301B) to shoot across a maintained 

road. Though this law only pertains to 

maintained roads, there are many routes 

in the desert that are used by 

motorcycles, quads, and four-wheel 

drive vehicles that are not as apparent as 

a maintained road. Shooting in the 

direction, or across them, though not a 

violation of the reference law, could be 

just as dangerous to people using them.

Choose a site that avoids shooting 

across or towards motorcycle, quad, or 

four-wheel-drive routes as well.

In addition to motorized routes, there are 

many popular hiking, bicycling and 

equestrian trails. Select a site that 

doesn't cross or shoot in the direction of 

a trail that could put people at risk. 

Selection of a safe shooting site would 

include staying more than 1⁄4 mile from 

any residence or occupied structure.

When selecting a site, assume any 

structure is occupied. It is a violation of 

Arizona State Law to knowingly 

discharge a firearm at a structure. The

statue (A.R.S 13-1211A and B) says: 

(A). A person who knowingly 

discharges a firearm at a residential 

structure is guilty of a class two felony.

(B). A person who knowingly 

discharges a firearm at a nonresidential 

structure is guilty of a class three felony.

Selection of a site should include 

avoiding such improvements as wildlife 

or livestock water facilities, livestock 

control facilities such as corrals and 

fences, signs or kiosks installed to 
Chapter 2

286

provide information, barns or other rural 

developments, or any other 

improvement that was not specifically 

designed to be shot at. 

It is a violation of Arizona State law 

(A.R.S. 13-1603A 1) if a person 

"Throws, places, drops or permits to be 

dropped on public property or property 

of another which is not a lawful dump 

any litter, destructive or injurious 

material which he does not immediately 

remove." This includes not only trash, 

but also brass or shells (including 

shotgun shells) from spent ammunition 

and items used as targets. Shooters are 

required to remove any targets, items on 

which targets are mounted, and brass 

from spent ammunition. BLM Phoenix 

District policy is to only use targets that 

do not produce litter, and to remove 

them when you are finished shooting. 

Under the Code of Federal Regulations 

(43 CFR 8365.2-5(a)) no person 

shall "Discharge or use firearms..." on a 

developed recreation site. 43 CFR 

8360.0-5(c) defines "Developed 

Recreation Sites and Areas" as "...sites 

and areas that contain structures or 

capital improvements primarily used by 

the public for recreation purposes. Such 

sites or areas may include such features 

as: delineated spaces for parking, 

camping or boat launching; sanitary 

facilities; potable water; grills or fire 

rings; or controlled access." 

Selecting sites with side berms and backstops is 

optional where the shooter can be assured of 

safe shooting 1.5 miles downrange for pistol or 

3.5 miles downrange for high powered rifles, 

with appropriate left and right ricochet safety 

zones. With the popularity of public lands for 

recreation and other uses, this scenario is the 

exception rather than the rule. Therefore, the 

primary purpose for selection of backstops and 

side berms is to protect against the injury of 

people, the damage of property or both.

The type of firearms being fired and the 

shooting activity being conducted will dictate 

the extent of the backstops, side berms and 

safety fans required to achieve that goal.

A downrange safety fan is an area beyond the 

backstop and side berms that is free of people or 

property that can be injured or damaged by 

errant bullets. It is important to remember that, 

depending on the suitability of the backstop and 

side berms, a safety fan downrange will be 

required to assure a safe shooting area. Below 

are ideal specifications for both backstops and 

side berms. Sites with less than ideal backstops 

and side berms must have increasingly longer 

downrange safety fans, approaching the 

distances described above of 1.5 miles for 

pistols and 3.5 miles for high power rifles. Even 

with an ideal backstop and side berms, site 

selection should still consider downrange safety 

and a downrange safety fan.

The characteristics of safe backstops and berms 

recognized as needed for safe shooting practices 

are as follows:

Height. Preferred backstops include 

naturally occurring hills or 

mountainsides, or steep-sided wash 

banks. Backstops of soft dirt are 

preferred over hard surfaces, and rocky 

slopes should be avoided as they create 

a high ricochet hazard. A minimum 

height of 15 feet is acceptable but 20 to 

25 feet is recommended. Remember 

that bullet ricochet can happen even on 

the best backstop. Site selection should 

consider ricochet possibilities and 

backstops that exceed 20 to 25 feet 

should be chosen where possible to 

reduce ricochet away from the shooting 

area. 

Width/Length. The width of the 

backstop should be at least as wide as it 

is high. Targets should be placed 

directly in front of or on the backstop 

with sufficient backstop on either side to 

catch bullets. Ideally, side berms should 

be the same height and the full length of 

the shooting area from the backstop to 

even with the firing line. 
Chapter 2

287

Slope. The range side slope (side facing 

the shooter) must be as steep as 

possible, but not less than a 45-degree 

slope (a ratio of one-to-one). Side berm 

slops should have the same dimensions. 

Remember, even with the perfect backstop and 

side berms, finding a suitable shooting area must 

include a safety fan beyond the backstop.

The bottom line is to select a shooting site in 

harmony with adjacent properties and other 

public land users. The site should prevent 

adjacent properties and other public land users 

from experiencing any risk from the shooters 

activities. The overall responsibility of the 

shooter is to stop fired bullets before they exit 

the selected shooting area. It is the intention of 

the BLM to provide a safe and pleasant 

experience for any public land user. If shooting 

areas emerge that are contrary to the above 

criteria they will be clearly construed as putting 

other public land users at risk and they may be 

closed to shooting by the authorized officer, 

either temporarily or permanently.

As the demand for recreation shooting grows 

along with the demand for other recreation 

opportunities, the need may arise to identify and 

designate areas as shooting ranges.

Many locations within the planning area would 

be suitable for this use and could provide a safe 

and enjoyable shooting experience.

Identification and future management would 

be defined through further site specific planning 

and analysis.

Adaptive Management

Public lands are experiencing intensive use from 

motorized and non-motorized recreation.

Impacts to natural resources are worsened by 

rapidly increasing urbanization and population 

growth next to the public lands. Other land uses 

are also contributing to the social conflicts and 

resource impacts on these lands. Some 

recreation use areas do not conform to other 

resource management objectives, such as 

Arizona Land Health Standards (Land Health 

Standards). 

Therefore, within two years of plan 

approval BLM will form a collaborative 

partnership with universities, external agencies, 

and interested communities and citizens to list 

and prioritize these areas of concern. The effort 

will then focus on developing a Limits of 

Acceptable Change (LAC) framework to 

determine suitable and acceptable use levels for 

recreation uses, considering natural resource, 

socio-political, and managerial factors. This 

process would consist of four major 

components:

1. specifying acceptable and achievable 

resource and social conditions, defined 

by a series of measurable indicators, 

2. analyzing the relationship between 

existing conditions and those judged 

acceptable, 

3. selecting management actions to best 

achieve these desired conditions, and

4. implementing a monitoring and 

evaluation process to determine if 

management goals and objectives are 

being met.

During this process, inventories, surveys, and 

studies of existing resource and social 

conditions would be conducted to obtain and 

establish baseline data from which standards can 

be set and measured. Indicators would include 

both resource and social impacts such as the 

following:

campsite proliferation or expansion, 

social trailing, 

soil compaction and erosion, and

the number of social encounters. 

Management Actions may include the following: 

providing public information and 

education, 

setting use and party-size limits, 

increasing visitor contacts and 

enforcement, and

closing areas seasonally or shifting use 

to other areas.
Chapter 2

288

Monitoring strategies may include 

measurements, rapid site assessments, 

photography, or other suitable techniques.

This process will be a dynamic approach in 

which adaptive management practices will be 

applied to facilitate learning and improve 

effectiveness. Efforts to coordinate with other 

resource disciplines will also be an integral part 

of this process.

Thresholds may be adjusted as needed to ensure 

resource protection, manage recreation use, 

minimize user conflicts, or react to new 

information or research, if warranted, due to 

changing circumstances or changes in 

management objectives.

The current authority for collection of recreation 

user fees would not allow for collection of such 

fees within the Bradshaw-Harquahala planning 

area. Under the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act of 2004, P.L.108-447, fees 

may be charged at a site that has:

clearly defined access points and area 

boundaries, 

substantial expenditure in operations 

and maintenance costs, 

significant investment in facilities 

(including roads and trails), and

contains all of the following amenities: 

o a designated and developed 

parking area 

o permanent toilet 

o permanent trash receptacle 

o kiosks 

o picnic tables 

o security services commensurate 

with use levels 

Should the above criteria be met in the future, a 

study would be initiated to determine the need 

and feasibility of charging a recreation use fee.

Administrative Actions

Develop partnerships and determine sustaining 

recreation and tourism-based economic 

opportunities with communities.

Interpretation and Environmental Education

Pursue multicultural interpretation and 

environmental education opportunities, outreach, 

development, and implementation of programs 

for adults and children. Apply learning 

modalities and incorporate various learning 

styles in program design and delivery.

Encourage the use of multiple intelligence or 

other theories for program presentations.

Develop school curricula focusing on the BLM's 

mission with staffs from schools, school 

districts, and other learning institutions.

Allow cultural and natural resource 

interpretation signs and facilities where needed 

for visitor enjoyment or resource protection.

Interpretive developments must be compatible 

with recreation management objectives, 

desired recreation settings, and VRM standards.

Develop websites and distribute brochures, 

maps, access guides, and information sheets to 

publicize the following:

off-highway and specialized recreation 

opportunities, 

OHV rules, 

camping and non-motorized trails 

information, 

shooting policies, regulations and safe 

shooting practices, and

applying Tread Lightly and Leave No 

Trace practices. 

Accessibility

To the highest extent possible, all new 

construction and modifications for recreation 

facilities, outdoor developed areas, and any 

related programs and activities will be accessible 

to people with disabilities in accordance with the 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, with later 

amendments. Guidance, requirements and 

standards for conforming to the above 

legislation may be found in the following: 
Chapter 2

289

Uniform Federal Accessibility 

Standards. 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines, and the ADAABA Accessibility Guidelines (use 

whichever guidance is most stringent). 

Proposed Outdoor Developed Areas

Guidelines (U.S. Access Board found at 

www.access-board.gov and 43 CFR Part 

17, Subpart E found 

at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.h

tml). 

2.7.3.7 Travel Management

Motorized and Mechanized 

Travel and Public Access

Land Use Allocations

All designated wilderness areas are closed to 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses.

Motorized and mechanized uses on all other 

BLM's lands will be Limited to Designated 

Routes. Until routes are designated, motorized 

vehicle access is limited to currently inventoried 

vehicle routes.

Closed = 96,820 acres

Limited to Designated Routes = 799,820 acres

Desired Future Condition 

Define, designate, implement, and monitor a 

designated and comprehensive travel 

management network affording a range of highquality and diverse motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. The 

network would consist of a system of areas, 

roads, primitive roads and/or trails. The travel 

management network and associated recreation 

opportunities would be consistent with other 

resource management objectives and recreation 

settings for the area.

Motorized routes connect neighboring 

communities, local jurisdictions, and lands 

administered by county, State, and Federal 

agencies to allow for multiple-day OHV 

experiences.

A regional network of motorized routes and 

access exists for long-distance OHV back 

country touring. Looping, regional 

routes connect the Black Canyon, Bradshaw 

Foothills, Wickenburg/Vulture, and HarquahalaBig Horn areas, and continue north to the 

Wagoner and Skull Valley area to connect to 

Prescott National Forest and the Great Western 

Trail. Economic development of local 

communities to the south, east, and west of 

Phoenix is synergistic with 

providing outstanding motorized recreation.

Management Actions

All motorized vehicles and mechanized human 

conveyances (such as bicycles) would be limited 

to designated routes. All routes would be 

designated within five years of plan approval.

Until route-specific designations are made, all 

motorized/mechanized vehicle travel and 

access would be limited to currently inventoried 

vehicle routes. Where inventories are not 

complete, use will be limited to existing routes.

Inventoried routes will be updated with input 

from BLM, partnerships, user groups, and 

citizens. For these purposes, livestock and game 

trails are not considered existing routes or trails.

Cross-country travel off designated routes would 

be prohibited, except for the following reasons:

public health, safety, and law 

enforcement emergencies; 

administrative uses; or

BLM-authorized tasks approved by the 

authorized officer. 

Vehicle access on designated routes may be 

temporarily closed when weather creates muddy 

conditions. When conditions are such that travel 

by vehicle cannot be accomplished without 

damaging the existing roadway or departing the 

roadway and traveling cross-country, the route is 

closed until the roadway can once again support 

a vehicle without damage.
Chapter 2

290

BLM recommends a standard evaluation 

process, supported by software and database and 

that is compatible with GIS functionality. A 

structured evaluation process would be applied 

to develop a designated travel and transportation 

system for all routes within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. A description of the 

current BLM Arizona standard process used to 

evaluate and designate routes can be found in 

Appendix D (should be a link in e-Planning).

These designations would apply to motorized 

vehicles and mechanized equipment designed to 

provide a mechanical advantage and intended 

for human conveyance, including automobiles, 

trucks, ATVs, motorcycles, mountain bikes, and 

other conveyances with one, two, three, four, or 

more wheels or tracks.

Once route designations are complete, changing 

conditions and demand may suggest a need for 

new routes to be added to the route network. 

The process for adding new routes to the 

designated route network, motorized or nonmotorized, would include a structured analysis 

approach. All proposed additions to the 

designated route network would be processed as 

follows:

1. Route locations will be mapped or located 

using accepted Global Positioning System 

devices and presented to the BLM office for 

consideration. Locations for route proposals 

off of designated motorized routes must be 

located and mapped using non-motorized 

methods.

2. The route proposal submitted to BLM will 

include a description of the route including 

its proposed width, its proposed use(s), and 

a rationale for its need.

3. The route location will be staked and 

flagged for on-the-ground review by 

resource specialists.

4. The route location will be analyzed for 

potential conflicts such as, (but not limited 

to): wildlife habitats, cultural resources, 

visual resources, other recreation uses, 

mining claims or leases, grazing facilities, 

rights-of-way, and proximity to other 

jurisdictions (such as private land.) A 

structured process, such as that described in 

Appendix D would be used to evaluate and 

document the potential route conditions.

5. The conflict assessment would lead to 

possible mitigation actions or alternative 

locations or design.

6. An environmental analysis (EA) would be 

conducted to determine the environmental 

affects of the proposed route and any 

Alternatives and mitigation suggested. 

7. A decision would be issued by the 

authorized officer based on Land Use Plan 

compliance, resource objectives, and 

environmental impacts.

8. The Travel Management Plan would be 

updated accordingly.

Single or multiple-use OHV and technical 

vehicle loops, routes, specialized sport sites and 

management strategies would be designed and 

developed through interdisciplinary plans, with 

community and user input. Routes and 

areas would be developed as needed for the 

following purposes:

protecting resources, 

ensuring visitor safety, 

satisfying local community needs, and 

improving recreation experiences or 

increasing recreation opportunities, such 

as for rock crawling and motorcycle 

trials.

Limits of acceptable change indicators and 

standards would be developed in site-specific 

planning to reduce user and resource conflicts.

All motorized vehicle route construction would 

be compatible with social and managerial 

recreation settings and VRM standards.

Communities, user groups, or agency staff can 

bring motorized vehicle route proposals forward 

for management attention.

Existing routes would be selected and 

designated for inclusion into a regional route 

network.

General long-distance travel corridors for OHV 

travel between field offices and other adjoining 

lands will be designated.
Chapter 2

291

Loop route opportunities would be recognized 

and spur trails connected to augment the existing 

route network where no resource conflicts 

preclude the actions.

Easements or rights-of-way across key private 

and State-administered lands would be acquired 

to ensure long-term network viability and public 

access. Easements or rights-of-way actions will

be undertaken when:

route system effectiveness is or would 

be adversely effected by outside actions; 

opportunity becomes available and the 

action is consistent with recreation 

settings and goals; 

recreation and resource disciplines need 

public and/or administrative access to 

sites; 

portal access is desired to support 

resource objectives of safety and 

sustainability. 

Where (1) a route creates a conflict between 

route users and natural or cultural resources, 

or (2) an OHV or special vehicle use conflicts 

with recreation management objectives, the 

following or other mitigation could be applied:

closing routes; 

limiting season of use and vehicle 

types, speeds, and noise; 

rerouting offending route segments; or 

modifying routes to reduce or eliminate 

conflicts. 

Motorized vehicles may not be used off 

designated vehicle routes to retrieve game. The 

cross-country use of wheeled game carriers is 

permitted, except in wilderness areas. 

Permittees, including livestock operators may 

not use motorized vehicles off designated routes 

without express permission from the Field 

Manager.

Recreation and Special Use permits would be 

authorized ensuring compliance with Federal, 

State, county, and local regulations for air 

quality and noise.

Use of transportation routes has the potential of 

contributing fugitive dust to the PM10 nonattainment area in Maricopa County. Use of 

routes in PM10 non-attainment areas and routes 

with fugitive dust issues will be part of the 

planning area‘s ongoing monitoring program. 

Proposed mitigation actions (closure, seasonal 

restrictions, speed limits, change in use, 

surfacing, surface and dust abatement 

treatments) will be addressed as part of the 

adaptive management for Travel and 

Transportation Management. Routes causing or 

contribution to unacceptable or noncompliant air 

quality impacts will be closed to travel until 

route conditions change or are corrected.

Administrative Actions

Develop Travel Management Plans to 

implement route designations, technical vehicle 

sites and other activities associated with travel 

management.

To comply with Maricopa County, State of 

Arizona and the Environmental Protection 

Agency‘s management of airborne particulates, 

it is BLM‘s responsibility to develop site 

specific planning to conform to those rules. 

BLM will manage and conduct activities on 

BLM land in a manner as to not contribute to 

fugitive pollutants that exceed thresholds. Upon 

completion of this planning effort, an air quality 

conformance plan will be developed for 

activities within the Maricopa County nonattainments areas which will focus on any 

potential dust producing activities, especially 

motorized recreation.

Coordinate route designation with adjoining 

field offices and land management agencies.

Establish relationships and enter into agreements 

with local interest groups and the business 

community for long-term route maintenance and 

community support for the ongoing management 

of the route system and its funding.

Prior to OHV route designations, citations may 

be issued and other enforcement actions taken 

for illegal or unauthorized vehicle travel 
Chapter 2

292

documented by BLM and Law Enforcement 

personnel. BLM‘s completed OHV route 

inventory for any subject area will constitute 

routes open and available for vehicle travel prior 

to a completed route evaluation and designation. 

Vehicle use in areas or on ―routes‖ not included 

as part of the inventoried route network will be 

considered illegal and unauthorized off-road or 

cross-country travel. Signing may or may not be 

present. For illegal or unauthorized vehicle 

travel, citations may be issued at the discretion 

of the Law Enforcement officer. Citations will 

be issued for vehicle travel on inventoried and 

pre-existing motorized routes when the routes 

are signed as closed to motorized travel. In 

accordance with BLM Instructional 

Memorandum 2005-07, vehicles may not pull 

off a designated route more than 100 feet.

Motorized Technical Vehicle Activities

Desired Future Condition

Provide designated, managed sites for 

specialized vehicle use, considering the unique 

natural terrain required for such activities. 

Certain types of motorized activities, such as

rock crawling and motorcycle observed trails, 

require extreme terrain features and are not

conducive to general use by traditional stock 4-

WD vehicles. These sites would not be 

evaluated and established during 

motorized route designation; however, access to 

these sites would be evaluated during route 

designation.

Management Actions

Technical vehicle sites would be evaluated and 

established on a case-by-case basis. Sites would 

be established if they result in no net loss of 

quality or quantity of sensitive resources such 

as cultural sites, wildlife habitat for priority 

species, sensitive soil resources, and other 

resources sensitive to motorized activities.

Limitations to assure the safe and intended use 

of these sites will be established as necessary.

BLM, working with user groups and enthusiasts, 

would define the limitations in order to provide 

and maintain challenging opportunities for 

specialized sport activities. In accordance with 

BLM Instructional Memorandum 2005-007, 

difficulty ratings will not be published. 

Motorized users would be informed of the 

required equipment and skills necessary to 

utilize these sites through signing, information 

sheets, and outreach programs.

Administrative Actions

Develop Travel Management Plans to 

implement route designations, technical vehicle 

sites and other activities associated with travel 

management.

Evaluate and establish technical vehicle sites on 

a case-by-case basis, with community and user 

input. Sites will be developed as needed for the 

following purposes:

ensuring visitor safety, 

meeting enthusiast needs, 

improving recreation experiences,

increasing recreation opportunities 

Site plans will establish limits of acceptable 

change indicators and standards. All sites must 

be compatible with social and managerial 

recreation settings and VRM standards; 

satisfy biological and ecological land health 

standards; protect or mitigate cultural resources; 

and achieve water quality standards for 

influenced drainages and watersheds.

Non-motorized Trail Networks 

Desired Future Condition

Provide a local and regional network of 

designated non-motorized trails for short and 

long-distance travel by foot, horseback, and 

human-powered conveyances (e.g. mountain 

bikes). Connect communities and Sonoran 

Desert landscapes by linking regional areas and 

communities through trail planning and 

implementing as coordinated by a State of 

Arizona trails plan. Develop trails that connect 

Black Canyon City with the Black Canyon Trail 

and Agua Fria National Monument. Also, use 
Chapter 2

293

long-distance trails to link communities and 

areas such as (but not limited to) the following:

Prescott Valley, 

Mayer, 

Black Canyon, 

Bradshaw Foothills, 

Wickenburg area, 

Vulture Mountains, and 

Harquahala Mountains.

Assist tourism and economic development of 

communities by providing non-motorized 

outdoor recreation experiences.

Management Actions

Equestrian and mountain biking activities that 

require SRPs could be limited to existing trails, 

which for these purposes do not 

include livestock and game trails. These 

limitations would be included in permit 

stipulations designed to protect resources and 

address safety concerns. Casual hiking and 

equestrian activities are not restricted to trails 

unless prescribed in the management actions of a 

special area designation or allocation. The 

authorized officer may close areas to casual 

hiking or equestrian use, or require these 

activities to be limited to trails, to mitigate 

resource damage.

Administrative Actions

Develop comprehensive Travel Management 

Plans for the management units. These 

plans would implement the route designations 

for the area.

Plan, designate, and develop new hiking, 

equestrian, or mountain bike trails through 

interdisciplinary plans with community and user 

input. Trails will be developed as needed for the 

following purposes:

protecting resources, 

ensuring visitor safety, 

meeting community needs, 

improving recreation experiences, or 

increasing recreation opportunities.

Trails project plans will establish limits of 

acceptable change indicators and standards. All 

trail building must be compatible with social and 

managerial recreation settings and VRM 

standards. Recreation settings are established in 

the Recreation sections of this plan. VRM 

standards are established in the Visual 

Resources sections of this plan. Communities, 

user groups, or agency staff can bring trail 

proposals forward for management attention.

An evaluation process, similar to one described 

in Appendix D, will be used to establish a 

designated public access and route system 

within the Bradshaw-Harquahala area public 

lands, consistent with the land use plan resource 

management objectives. 

Travel Management Plans

Travel management plans (TMPs) will be 

created for management units after route 

designation is completed. The TMP will address 

issues such as:

A map depicting the final decision for 

route designations, including all modes 

of travel and primary uses.

Guidance for seeking active public 

involvement throughout the route 

designation process and follow on 

management decisions.

Guidance for using an interdisciplinary 

approach to identifying and mitigating 

resource impacts.

Definitions and additional limitations 

for specific roads and trails (defined in 

43 CFR 83400-5(g)).

Creating a catalog for each individual 

route‘s Travel Management Objective 

(TMO) sheets;

Indications of changes in status of 

existing routes and areas.

Risk management

Coordination with adjoining 

jurisdictions

Identify long distance route corridors for 

connectivity with adjoining jurisdictions 

and general long distance touring.
Chapter 2

294

Identification of Special Recreation 

Management Zones where Technical 

Four Wheel Drive activities are 

authorized.

Criteria and procedures for making 

additions and deletions from the route 

system;

Signing plans and sign inventories;

Facility development (engineering);

Guidelines for education and 

enforcement;

Guidelines for system monitoring and 

compliance;

Coordination with BLM‘s Facility and 

Asset Management System(FAMS);

Dust management plans;

Indicators to guide future plan 

maintenance, amendments or revisions 

related to the travel management 

network.

Needed improvements, signing, 

trailheads and staging areas.

Needed maintenance intensity and 

easements or rights-of-way to maintain 

the existing or proposed road and trail 

network providing public land access.

Guidelines for periodic review of the 

travel management plan and triggers for 

making updates and/or maintenance.

Identification of existing roads, 

primitive roads, trails and related 

facilities (baseline inventory data)

Other topics as necessary to manage 

travel.

General Travel Management Area boundaries 

correspond to Management Unit boundaries. 

The following considerations will guide 

decisions on travel management: 

a. Designated wilderness areas are managed 

according to the existing decisions described 

in this plan.

b. All areas outside of designated wilderness are 

limited vehicle use areas where vehicles are 

limited to routes designated as open or 

available for vehicle use as follows:

Non-motorized, mechanized vehicle use 

(e.g., bicycles, hang gliders, other devices 

for conveyance and stock drawn 

carts/wagons) is restricted to routes or sites 

designated as available, or open for such 

use. Non-motorized, hand-powered 

wheeled game carriers are permitted as 

described below.

Decisions regarding motorized vehicles are 

according to the prescriptions in the Travel 

Management sections of this plan.

c. Non-mechanized travel (i.e., foot and 

equestrian use) is allowed off designated 

routes, except where otherwise prohibited. 

The creation of routes caused by repetitive use 

is discouraged. Routes not meeting land 

health standards or plan objectives may be 

closed. 

d. All caves, mines, wells, abandoned structures, 

or other confined spaces are closed to public 

entry unless an individual site is signed open 

for such entry or entry is authorized under 

special use permit.

e. The use of aircraft, motorized and nonmotorized, must conform to Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) standards including the 

use of backcountry landing strips. There are 

no backcountry airstrips designated for public 

use on BLM land within the planning area. 

Use of public lands for launching or landing 

aircraft other than airplanes (balloons, hang 

gliders, etc.) may be permitted on a case-bycase basis through the appropriate permit 

process. The Yarnell Hang Gliding launch 

area is discussed in other sections of this plan.

f. Area closures to access and travel methods 

may be enacted where travel is determine to 

be inconsistent with the recreation 

management zone, harming resources, or 

failing to achieve the objectives of the plan.

g. Touring routes and trail systems, both 

motorized and non-motorized, are a priority 

and will be addressed through activity 

(implementation) level planning. Proposed 

actions that may effect proposed touring 

routes and trail systems will be evaluated and 

adjusted when possible to avoid impacts. 

Examples of priority routes and trail systems 

include the Maricopa County Regional Trail 

System and long distance vehicle touring 

routes with local and regional significance.

h. Administrative and other authorized use will 

be approved on a case-by-case basis (see 
Chapter 2

295

decision of administrative and emergency 

access below).

i. Temporary access and use restrictions may be 

enacted when needed to protect resources or 

public health and safety.

PM10 Non-attainment Area Administrative 

TMA:

a. All General TMA prescriptions apply.

b. The areas described in 40 CFR 81.303 or 

subsequent regulation or policy as PM10 air 

quality non-attainment areas will be managed 

for compliance with EPA and County standards 

and other applicable standards to maintain air 

quality. Dust mitigation measures may be 

implemented including, but not limited to, speed 

limits, adding dust reducing agents to disturbed 

areas, seasonal closure, or year round closure.

c. Management units affected in part or whole 

are: Castle Hot Springs, Hassayampa.

2.7.3.8 Visual Resource 

Management

Manage visual resources to minimize the visual 

intrusion of any authorized activity. Apply 

VRM class standards consistent with other 

resource objectives.

If possible, avoid utilizing strobes or other lights 

that will affect the quality of night skies.

2.7.3.9 Rangeland Management

Implement ephemeral range designation, where 

suitable, for managing vegetation and ecological 

processes as determined through the Arizona 

Land Health Standards (Land Health Standards) 

allotment evaluation process.

BLM may designate those areas for ephemeral 

grazing by applying criteria established in the 

Special Ephemeral Rule. In applying the rule, 

all the following criteria must be met at the same 

time:

1. The area is within the hot desert biome. 

2. Annual precipitation is less than 8 

inches. 

3. The land produces less than 25 

pounds/acres of desirable perennial 

forage. 

4. The land contains less than five 

percent composition of desirable 

perennial forage plants. 

5. The area is below 3,500 feet in 

elevation. 

6. Total forage production is highly 

unpredictable, and forage is usually 

available only for a short time. 

7. The growth depends upon abundant 

moisture and other favorable climatic 

conditions. 

8. The area lacks potential to improve the 

current ecological conditions and 

produce a dependable supply of forage 

by applying intensive rangeland 

management. 

2.7.3.10 Mineral Resource 

Management

If mineral estate under lands now closed to 

mineral entry are opened to mineral 

entry, manage those lands, including mineral 

estate, will be managed consistent with the

Decisions made in this plan.

Deny mineral material disposal applications if 

the disposal would result in a net loss of desert 

tortoise habitat.

On split estate lands:

If BLM manages the Federal mineral 

estate but the surface is not in Federal 

ownership, BLM will manage the lands 

as public lands under FLPMA. 

Unless it is determined to be detrimental 

to the public interest, BLM will not 

normally allow mineral material 

disposal without the surface owner's 

consent. 

Where the private surface has been 

developed for non-mineral use, BLM 

will limit or forgo mineral materials 

sales. 
Chapter 2

296

On split estate lands, BLM will not 

normally manage for solid mineral 

development without surface owner 

consent, unless it is determined to be 

detrimental to the public interest.

2.7.3.11 Wild Burro Management

Management decisions from the previous RMP 

concerning the Lake Pleasant Herd Management 

Area (HMA) will be carried forward.

Management of burros within the Lake Pleasant 

HMA will continue in accordance with the 

provisions of the Lake Pleasant Herd 

Management Plan and managed to achieve the 

Appropriate Management Level (AML) set in 

that plan. Burros would be removed from the 

Lake Pleasant HMA when the population 

exceeds the AML or if burros are determined to 

be nuisance animals as defined by the Wild 

Horse and Burro act of 1972.

A manageability analysis of the Harquahala HA 

is included in Appendix G. This analysis is the 

basis for future burro management within the 

Harquahala Herd Area. In response to the 

manageability analysis, the Harquahala HA will

not be managed as a HMA. Burros will be 

removed from the herd area as funding is 

available with the target of reaching a population 

of zero.

BLM will coordinate with the AGFD and other 

affected interests during its evaluation of 

any proposals for burro management.

2.8 Alternatives 

Considered But Not 

Analyzed in Detail

This section briefly describes management 

options that were suggested either during 

scoping or public workshops. BLM determined 

these management options should not be

included in any Alternative. The elements are 

described below, along with the reasoning for 

excluding them from further consideration.

Designate Shooting Areas within Agua Fria 

National Monument or the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area

Designated shooting areas were not established 

because of safety concerns for areas where 

shooting would concentrate; therefore, would 

not be managed as shooting ranges. In addition, 

the potential concentrations of lead in such areas 

would require compliance with EPA regulations 

for site cleanup and monitoring. BLM and the 

AGFD can issue citations for the unsafe 

discharge of firearms. However, maintenance of 

safe conditions is considered achievable under 

current regulations, at current enforcement 

levels, and with the direction written in section 

2.7.3.7 under the discussion of Recreational 

Target Shooting.

Restrict Shooting in Utility Corridors

Designating corridors as off-limits to shooting 

would be difficult to enforce because corridors 

are not physically marked on public lands. It is 

difficult for recreationists to know if they are in 

a corridor because many utilities do not include 

aboveground facilities. We feel enforcement of 

safe and proper recreational shooting is 

achievable with the direction written in section 

2.7.3.7 regarding Recreational Target Shooting.

Establish Open OHV Areas

Designating areas open to cross-country OHV 

use was not proposed because a complete 

designated route system will be prepared after 

the RMP is approved. The BradshawHarquahala Planning Area vehicle routes are 

being inventoried, but the comprehensive 

inventory is not complete. The route 

evaluation/decision tree process used for the 

national monument will be applied to develop a 

transportation plan for rest of the planning area.

Most areas with existing heavy OHV use are

located within desert tortoise habitat, and more 

degradation of habitat would not be permitted.

Reclassify Some Areas of Desert Tortoise 

Habitat from Category II to Category I
Chapter 2

297

The classification process evaluates several 

characteristics, including habitat quality and 

manageability. If habitat areas had met the 

criteria for Category I during the evaluation 

process that produced the existing 

classifications, these areas would be reflected as 

such in the current category mapping.

Establish User Fees for Agua Fria National 

Monument

The expected level of improvements and visitor 

facilities should not require extensive 

additional staffing or maintenance. 

Furthermore, fee collection on the monument 

under current conditions would be inconsistent 

with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act of 2004, P.L.108-447.

Establish Permit Program and User Fees in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

The collaborative planning process used for this 

effort has resulted in multiple contacts with local 

community groups that BLM will continue to 

work with throughout the implementing of the 

plan. The increased community contact should 

result in a higher level of awareness of the value 

of public lands and assist in long-term 

management through volunteer programs and 

site stewardship. Therefore, BLM believes that 

adequate management can be maintained 

without imposing user fees and adding staff.

Furthermore, fee collection under current 

conditions would be inconsistent with the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 

2004, P.L.108-447.

Identify Locations and Manage for 

Recreational Prospecting

All forms of mining, including casual use 

(sometimes referred to as recreational 

prospecting), are managed under existing mining 

laws and regulations. Managing prospecting as 

a recreation activity would require changes to 

the mining laws and regulations that are beyond 

the purview of the RMP process.

2.9 Typical 

Management Actions 

and Standard 

Operating Procedures

2.9.1 Typical Management 

Actions

2.9.1.1 Vegetation Treatment

Several treatment methods and standard 

operating procedures will be used in a vegetation 

treatment program. BLM's policies and 

guidance for public land treatments will be 

followed in implementing all treatment 

methods. Guidelines are provided in the 

following documents:

Manual Section 1740, BLM Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health (Land 

Health Standards). 

Programmatic documents such as 

BLM's Environmental Impact Statement 

for Vegetation Treatments, Watersheds 

and Wildlife Habitats on Public Lands

Administered by the BLM in the 

Western United States, including Alaska 

(BLM 1991). 

Other general and specific program 

policy, procedures, and standards for 

implementing renewable resource 

improvements.

The following manual, chemical, mechanical, 

biological, and fire treatment methods would be 

used under all Alternatives.

Manual Vegetation Treatment

Hand-operated power tools and hand tools are 

used in manual vegetation treatment to cut, 

clear, or prune herbaceous and woody plants. In 

manual treatments workers do the following:
Chapter 2

298

cut plants above ground level, 

pull, grub, or dig out plant root systems 

to prevent later sprouting and regrowth, 

scalp at ground level or remove 

competing plants around desired 

vegetation, and

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 roots 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 chainsaws and power brush saws.

Although manual vegetation treatment is labor 

intensive and costly, compared to prescribed 

burning or herbicide application, it can be 

extremely species selective and can be used in 

areas of sensitive habitats or areas that are 

inaccessible to ground vehicles. Manual 

treatment of undesired plants would be used on 

sites designated as categories a, b or c, where 

fire (prescribed or naturally ignited) is 

undesirable or where significant constraints 

prevent widespread use of fire as a management 

tool. These sites comprise a range of vegetation 

communities or habitat types. They include areas 

where there may be wildlife concerns, yet it is 

deemed beneficial to remove trees, shrubs, or 

other fuel-loading vegetation. Manual 

vegetation treatments cause less ground 

disturbance and generally remove less 

vegetation than prescribed fire or mechanical 

treatments.

Mechanical Vegetation Treatment

Mechanical vegetation treatments 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. BLM uses wheeled tractors, 

crawler-type tractors, mowers, or specially 

designed vehicles with attached implements for 

mechanical vegetation treatments. Mechanical 

equipment is used to reduce fuel hazards in 

accordance with BLM established procedures.

Re-seeding after mechanical treatments is 

important to help ensure that desirable plants 

and not weedy species will become established 

on the site. Mechanical treatment and reseeding 

should occur at a time to best control the 

undesirable vegetation and encourage the 

establishing 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 resprouting 

ability, 

need for seedbed preparation, 

revegetation, and improved 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, and

potential cost of improvement as 

compared to expected results. 

Bulldozing consists of a wheeled or crawler 

tractor with a heavy hydraulic controlled 

blade. Bulldozers push over and uproot 

vegetation and leave it in windrows or piles.

Bulldozing is best adapted to removing scattered 

stands of large brush or trees. Several different 

kinds of blades can be used, depending of the 

type of vegetation and goals of the project. The 

disadvantage of bulldozing is that is disturbs 

soil and may damage non-target plants.

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. Several different kinds of root plows are 
Chapter 2

299

specific for certain types of vegetation. In 

addition to killing vegetation, disk plowing 

loosens 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 (> 35-45 percent slope) or rocky soil.

Plant species that sprout from roots may survive. 

Vegetation is chained and cabled by dragging 

heavy anchor chains or steel cables hooked to 

tractors in a U-shape, half circle, or J-shaped 

manner. Effective on rocky soils and steep 

slopes, chaining and cabling are best used to 

control non-sprouting woody vegetation such as 

small trees and shrubs. Desirable shrubs may be 

damaged in the process. This control method 

normally does not injure herbaceous 

vegetation. It is cost effective because it 

can readily treat large areas. The chains or 

cables also scarify the soil surface in anticipation 

of seeding desirable species. The disadvantage 

is that weedy herbaceous vegetation can survive 

this treatment.

Various tractor attachments are used for 

mowing, beating, crushing, chopping, or 

shredding vegetation, depending on the nature of 

the plant stand and goals of the project. The 

advantage in using this type of equipment is that 

selective plants may be targeted to achieve 

specific goals. For example, mowing is 

effective in reducing plant height to a desirable 

condition, and mowing usually does not kill 

vegetation. Mowing is more effective on 

herbaceous than woody vegetation. On the other 

hand, a rolling cutter leaves herbaceous 

vegetation but can kill woody nonsprouting 

vegetation by breaking stems at ground level.

Mowing, beating, crushing, chopping, or 

shredding usually do not disturb soil. Rocky 

soil and steep slopes may limit the use of this 

equipment.

Debris management after a mechanical treatment 

is critical in fuels reduction projects. Vegetation 

material that is left on a site will dry and may 

become more hazardous than before the 

treatment. Herbaceous material is usually not a 

problem because it will decompose relatively 

fast, depending on soil moisture and ambient 

humidity and temperature. Woody vegetation 

should be piled and burned under acceptable fire 

management practices.

Biological Vegetation Treatment

Biological methods of vegetation treatment 

employ living organisms to selectively suppress, 

inhibit, or control herbaceous and woody 

vegetation. This method is viewed as one of the 

more natural processes because it requires the 

proper management and plant-eating organisms 

and precludes the use of mechanical devices, 

chemical treatments, or burning.

The use of biological control agents will be 

conducted in accordance with procedures in 

BLM Manual 9014, Use of Biological Control 

Agents of Pests on Public Lands (BLM 1990b).

Insects, pathogens, and grazing by cattle, sheep, 

or goats would be used as biological control 

methods under all Alternatives, but these 

methods can control only a few plant species.

Insects are the main natural enemies now being 

used. Other natural enemies include mites, 

nematodes, and pathogens. This treatment 

method will not eradicate the target plant species 

but merely reduces the target plant densities to 

more tolerable levels. This method also reduces 

competition with the desired plant species for 

space, water, and nutrients. This treatment 

method will be used on larger sites where the 

target plant has become established and is 

strongly competitive.

Gradually, biological methods using cattle, 

sheep, or goats would avoid erosion hazard 

areas, areas of compactable soils, riparian areas 

susceptible to bank damage, and steep erodible 

slopes.

Biological control using cattle, sheep, or goats 

would be applied to treatment areas for short 

periods. In using grazing animals as effective 

biological control measures, several factors will 

be considered:

target plant species present, 
Chapter 2

300

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 being considered for 

use,

availability of that grazing animal within 

the treatment site area, 

type of management program that is 

logical and realistic for the treatment 

site, and

potential impacts to native wildlife and 

their habitat. 

These factors will be some of the options taken 

when developing the treatment for a site.

Cattle, sheep, and goats can be used to control 

the top growth of certain noxious weeds. The 

following are some advantages of using 

livestock, mainly sheep or goats, for noxious 

weed control.

They use weeds as a food source. 

After a brief adjustment period, they 

sometimes consume as much as 50% of 

their daily diet of certain noxious weed 

species. 

Average daily gains of offspring grazing 

certain weed-infested pastures can 

sometimes be significantly higher than 

average daily gains of offspring grazing 

grass pastures. 

Sheep or goats can be used in 

combination with herbicides. 

Following are some of the disadvantages of 

using livestock:

They also use non-target plants as food 

sources; 

The use of domestic animals, like sheep 

or goats, may require a herder or 

temporary fencing; 

The animals may be killed by predators 

such as coyotes; 

Heavy grazing of some weed species, 

such as leafy spurge, tends to loosen the 

stool of grazing animals; 

Most weed species are less palatable 

than desirable vegetation, and 

overgrazing would result; 

Livestock may accelerate movement of 

non-native plants by ingesting and 

excreting seeds. 

Livestock may transmit parasites or 

pathogens to resident native wildlife 

species. 

Particular insects, pathogens, or combinations of 

these biological control agents may also be 

introduced into an area of competing or 

undesired vegetation to selectively feed upon or 

infect target plants and eventually reduce their 

density within that area. Only on rare occasions 

will one biological control agent reduce the 

target plant density to the desired level of

control. Therefore, a complex of biological 

control agents is most often needed to reduce the 

target plant density to a desirable level. Even 

with a complex of biological control agents, 

often 15 to 20 years are needed to bring about an 

economic control level, especially on creeping 

perennials. In most circumstances, biological 

control agents are not performing control. They 

are only creating stresses on weeds, which is not 

the same as control.

Some advantages of using natural enemies to 

control weeds are as follows: 

They are self-perpetuating. 

They can be comparatively economical 

once studied and established. 

They can be highly selective. 

They offer a high degree of 

environmental safety. 

They do not require fossil fuel energy. 

Biological control does have the following 

imitations:

It is a slow process. 

It does not achieve eradication but 

merely reduces weed densities to more 

tolerable levels. 
Chapter 2

301

It is highly selective, attacking one weed 

existing among a complex of other 

weeds. 

It cannot be used against weeds that are 

valued in some situations because 

insects or pathogens do not recognize 

boundaries. 

It cannot be used against weeds that are 

closely related to beneficial plants 

because the insects or pathogens may be 

unable to discriminate between related 

plant species. 

It cannot be used against weeds when 

the biological control agent requires an 

alternate host that may be a beneficial 

plant. 

To develop a biological weed control program, 

the following steps must be taken:

1. Identify weed species and determine 

origin. 

2. Determine if any natural enemies occur 

at the point of origin. 

3. If possible, collect natural enemies. 

4. Hold preliminary screening trials on the 

natural enemies of the weed in the 

United States. 

5. Hold further screening trials in the 

United States. 

6. Raise biological control agents before 

the first release. 

7. Release biological control agents for the 

first time onto selected sites. 

8. If biological control agents survive and 

increase in numbers, collect agents and 

release onto other sites of weed 

infestation. 

Usually a complex of at least three to five 

different biological agents, such as insects, must 

be used to attack a weed infestation site. Even 

with a complex of biological agents, often 15 to 

20 years are needed to bring about an economic 

control level, especially on creeping perennial 

plants.

Chemical

Chemical treatment would be used to control 

unwanted vegetation, and in some instances 

would be followed by a prescribed burn.

Treatments would be conducted in accordance 

with BLM procedures and would meet or exceed 

individual State label standards. The chemicals 

can be applied by many different methods, and 

the selected technique depends on several 

variables, including the following: 

treatment objective (removal or 

reduction), 

accessibility, topography, and size of the 

treatment area, 

characteristics of the target species and 

the desired vegetation, 

the location of sensitive areas in the 

immediate vicinity (potential 

environmental impacts), 

expected costs and equipment 

limitations; and 

meteorological and vegetation 

conditions of the treatment area at the 

time of treatment. 

Herbicide applications are scheduled and 

designed to minimize potential impacts on 

nontarget 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 differs from the most ideal herbicide 

application for maximum control of the target 

plant species to minimize damage to the nontarget plant species, and to ensure minimum risk 

to human health and safety.

The chemicals would be applied aerially with 

helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft or on the 

ground using vehicles or manual application 

devices. Helicopters are more expensive to use 

than fixed-wing aircraft. They are more 
Chapter 2

302

maneuverable and effective in areas with 

irregular terrain and in treating specific target 

vegetation in areas with many vegetation types.

Manual applications are used only for treating 

small areas or areas inaccessible by vehicle.

The typical and maximum application rates of 

each chemical would vary, depending on the 

program area being treated.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning is the planned application of 

fire to wildland fuels in their natural or modified 

state, under specific conditions of fuels, weather, 

and other variables, to allow the fire to remain in 

a predetermined area and to achieve site-specific 

fire and resource management objectives.

Management objectives of prescribed burning 

include the following:

controlling of certain species, 

enhancing growth, reproduction, or 

vigor of certain species, 

managing fuel loads, and

maintaining vegetation community types 

that best meet multiple use management 

objectives.

Treatments would be implemented in 

accordance with BLM's procedures 

in Prescribed Fire Management (BLM 2000c)

Before conducting a prescribed burn, a written 

plan must be prepared. The plan must:

consider existing conditions (amount of 

fuel, fuel moisture, temperatures, 

terrain, weather forecasts) and

name the people responsible for 

overseeing the fire. 

Also, natural fire that is allowed to burn needs to 

be carefully monitored to ensure that it will not 

threaten communities, ecosystems, and other 

values to be protected. This monitoring may 

require special expertise such as fire-use 

management teams that support the overall fire 

management program. Planning and 

implementation for a specific prescribed fire 

project entails the following four phases:

Phase One: Information/assessment includes the 

following:

determining the area to be treated, 

inventorying and assessing site-specific 

conditions (live and dead vegetation 

densities, dead and down woody fuel 

loadings, soil types), 

analyzing historic and present fire 

management, 

identifying resource objectives from 

land use plans, and

conducting NEPA analysis and 

compliance. 

Phase Two: Prescribed fire plan development 

includes the following:

developing the site-specific prescribed 

fire plan to BLM's standards, 

reviewing the plan, and

obtaining plan approval from local 

BLM's field office administrators. 

Phase Three: Implementation includes the 

following:

preparing the prescribed fire boundary 

to ensure that the fire remains within 

prescribed boundaries,

preparing the site, which may include 

building firelines and improving vehicle 

routes and wildlife and stock trails by 

limbing trees and clearing debris, and

igniting the fire according to the plan's 

prescribed parameters.

Phase Four: Monitoring and evaluation 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.
Chapter 2

303

2.9.2 Appropriate 

Management Response

2.9.2.1 Fire Management

The appropriate management response concept 

represents a range of available management 

responses to wildland fires. Responses range 

from full fire suppression to managing fires for 

resource benefits (fire use). Management 

responses applied to a fire will be listed in 

the fire management plan by the following:

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 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

The following constraints to fire suppression 

actions are common to all Alternatives:

Use suppression tactics that limit 

damage or disturbance to the habitat and 

landscape. Use no heavy 

equipment (such as dozers) unless 

approved. 

Use fire retardants or chemicals next to 

waterways in accordance with the 

Environmental Guidelines for Delivery 

of Retardant or Foam near Waterways 

(Interagency Standards for Fire and 

Aviation Operations Task Group 2004). 

Protect all known cultural 

resources from disturbance. 

In wilderness areas when suppression is 

required, use MIST and coordinate with 

wilderness area management objectives 

and resource advisors. 

Implement general and species-specific 

conservation measures to the extent 

possible to minimize harm to federally 

listed, proposed, or candidate species 

within the action area. 

2.9.3 Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs)

Standard Operating Policies and Procedures

BLM operates under a number of policies and 

procedures separate from the management 

decisions that are required to be analyzed in this 

planning process. The policies and procedures 

either already exist, or have been identified 

through the collaborative planning process and 

will be used to guide the implementation of the 

management decisions. The following section 

summarizes the policies and procedures for both 

the monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, for those resource categories that 

have identified such policies and procedures.

General Standard Operating Procedures

All activities planned or conducted on BLM's 

land are subject to environmental analysis in 

compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The process to comply with 

NEPA first involves making a determination 

whether the propose action is in conformance 

with the RMPs. Next, a determination of NEPA 

adequacy is conducted to determine if existing 

environmental analysis is adequate to address 

the proposal. And finally, if additional analysis

is required, an environmental analysis (EA) is 

written to address site specific environmental 

impacts that might occur. Some projects, 

because of where they occur or for other 

reasons, may have adequate NEPA compliance 

through Categorical Exclusion. In any case, all 

projects require clearance for cultural resources 

and sensitive wildlife habitats. If it is 

determined there may be an effect to significant 

cultural resources, mitigation(s) is/are 

recommended and consultation with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer is initiated. If it is 

determined there may be an effect to Threatened 

or Endangered species or their habitat, 
Chapter 2

304

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

is initiated.

SOPs for Agua Fria National Monument

Special Recreation Permits

Non-Motorized Trail Construction

Trails are designed to minimize surface 

disturbance.

Linear areas of interest would be marked with 

fiberglass posts or rock cairns to establish the 

footpath.

Consider alternative types of transportation to 

link areas of interest within the monument.

Develop partnerships with local clubs and 

organizations to help maintain and monitor 

trails.

Motorized Trail Construction

Minimize surface disturbance by, where 

possible, using existing roads for motorized 

recreation.

Develop partnerships with local clubs and 

organizations to help maintain and monitor 

trails.

Lands and Realty

Obtain reasonable public and administrative 

access to BLM's managed lands within the 

monument in the following way:

Require reciprocal access easements to 

meet specific program needs. 

Consider and manage the use of public 

lands for rights-of-way, right-of-way 

reservations, easements, permits, leases, 

licenses, agreements, etc, except for 

those areas identified as exclusion areas. 

Secure access easements as needed to 

prevent closing of access to public 

lands. 

Consider and evaluate acquisitions that 

would reduce conflicts between BLM 

and non-Federal landowner objectives, 

especially when conflicts are adversely 

affecting BLM‘s ability to meet resource 

goals.

Consider acquiring lands where lands to 

achieve BLM resource management 

objectives. Evaluate the following: 

o key wildlife habitat, fisheries 

management areas and habitat 

for threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species; lands with 

water frontage, such as lakes, 

streams, flood plains, wetlands, 

and associated riparian 

ecosystems Land with important 

value for outdoor recreation 

purposes 

o land needed for visual resource 

protection 

o lands needed to bring existing 

BLM's managed land into 

consolidated geographical units. 

o partial interest acquisitions, 

such as access, minerals, water 

rights or conservation easements 

to benefit public land 

management within the 

monument 

o consider public/private land 

management and stewardship 

opportunities to assist in the 

management of BLM's lands 

within the Agua Fria National 

Monument 

Communication Sites

Any future communication sites will be 

designated only within the boundaries of 

designated utility corridors.

BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA PLANNING 

AREA

Travel and Transportation Planning

Plan, designate, and develop single or multiple 

use off-highway and special recreation vehicle 
Chapter 2

305

areas, loops, routes, and management strategies 

through interdisciplinary plans, with community 

and user input. Plans shall adopt limits of 

acceptable change indicators and standards and 

reduce user conflicts.

Evaluate roads, routes, and trails, on a case-bycase basis, for permitted events. Determine their 

suitability or if they will require action such as, 

closure, re-routing, rehabilitation, upgrading or 

authorization as an approved permitted course.

Enact road, trail, or area closures or mitigation 

where off-highway or special vehicle use is 

determined to be inconsistent with established 

recreation management objectives, and/or such 

use is causing harm to resources.

Permit motorized cross-country use only when 

specifically authorized for completing a BLM 

authorized task.

Develop brochures, maps, access guides, and 

information sheets and disseminate off-highway 

and vehicle information to the public.

Develop a specific AFNM Transportation 

Management Plan if necessary to implement 

route designations and guide associated 

activities. Otherwise route management is 

guided by this plan and other applicable laws, 

regulation and guidance.

Recreation 

Parking, Staging Areas, and Facilities

Parking and staging areas will be allowed for 

visitors' needs to enhance recreation

opportunities, to protect natural resources, to 

satisfy local community needs, or for public 

safety purposes. 

Conduct site-specific planning, on a case-bycase basis.

Authorize facilities where needed for resource 

protection, visitor safety, improving the 

recreation experience or increasing recreation 

opportunities.

In non-designated areas, establish designated 

camping locations, off-highway and special 

recreation vehicle use areas and sites as needed 

for resource protection, visitor safety, improving 

the recreation experience or increasing 

recreation opportunities.

Evaluate, as needed, planning and installation of 

improvements for long-and short term camping 

areas, commercial and competitive off-highway 

and special recreation vehicle use areas, water, 

toilets, scenic turnouts, cultural interpretive 

sites, kiosks, hiking, equestrian or mountain bike 

trails, road and portal signage and road 

maintenance as needed and identified by 

communities, user groups, or agency staff.

Recreation Sites

Develop brochure guides for developed sites.

Allow cultural and natural resource 

interpretation where needed for visitor 

enjoyment or resource protection.

Camping

Close trailhead facilities to overnight camping 

upon authorization of the Field Manager.

Recreation Management in SRMAs/RMZs

Allow for increased recreation use in appropriate 

areas, while protecting natural and cultural 

resources through limitations in sensitive areas. 

Preserving a healthy, properly functioning, and 

natural appearing landscape is essential.

Engage a diverse group of stakeholders in a 

collective effort to conserve the ecological, 

cultural, open space and recreation values of the 

area so that it remains a place where people want 

to live, work and recreate.

Initiate acquisition of lands, easements, or 

establish conservation agreements through:

exchange of private lands, 

conservation agreements for high value 

cultural, biological, or recreation lands, 
Chapter 2

306

purchase of access agreements or rightsof-way. 

Assist local community efforts to work with the 

Arizona State Land Department for recreation 

easements across State land.

Form citizen, agency, and Government working 

groups to identify non-public (private and State) 

lands with high-value biological, cultural, 

scenic, open space, access or recreation 

resources that should be protected. 

Deliver recommendations and objectives on 

land, access and open space conservation to 

BLM or the appropriate entity early enough so 

objectives can be met.

Maintain scenic and natural landscape settings 

while offering visitors a diverse array of 

recreation opportunities, including both humanpowered and motorized-based activities. 

Emphasis would be placed on maintaining rural 

and natural settings, and protecting visual 

resources. Enter into Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act leases or patents with qualified 

entities when appropriate to achieve resource 

objectives.

Avoid vehicle and recreation uses/access to 

areas with known listed, sensitive, threatened, 

and/or endangered species (plant and wildlife).

Minimize recreation use and vehicular traffic 

when the soils are wet or during high-fire threat 

conditions.

Form partnership with communities and user 

groups to prevent and restore areas impacted by 

litter/dumping.

Complete comprehensive trails strategy 

and planning to select and develop new singleuse and multi-use, hiking, equestrian, and OHV 

trails where appropriate to meet resource 

objectives. Then, implement that plan.

Work with private property owners to reduce 

conflicts between private owners and 

recreational activities.

Manage the lands within SRMAs/RMZs for 

multiple uses, including livestock grazing and 

OHV uses.

Complete a comprehensive inventory and 

description of all existing and potentially 

mechanized and non-mechanized trails and 

routes on public land.

Evaluate roads, routes, and trails, on a case-bycase basis for permitted events and determine 

suitability for closure, re-routing, rehabilitation, 

upgrading or authorization as an approved 

permitted course.

Develop brochures, maps, access guides, and 

information sheets and disseminate off-highway 

and special recreation vehicle information to the 

public.

Plan, designate and develop single- or multiple 

use off-highway and special recreation vehicle 

areas, loops, tours, routes and management 

strategies through interdisciplinary plans, with 

community and user input. Emphasis will be 

placed on all-terrain vehicle opportunities and 

trail linkages with the Black Canyon, New 

River, Anthem, Wickenburg, Cordes Lakes, and 

other communities. Planning shall adopt limits 

of acceptable change indicators and standards 

and emphasize reducing user conflicts.

Mineral Resources

Unless otherwise restricted, all Federal mineral 

estates administered by BLM 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 resource concepts. Overall 

guidance on the management of mineral 

resources appears in the Mining and Minerals 

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.
Chapter 2

307

Exploration and development of all mineral 

resources will be conducted in accordance with 

all applicable laws and regulations.

Acquired lands will be opened to mineral entry 

unless critical resource values (threatened and 

endangered species, riparian habitat, scenic 

values, etc.) or public health and safety require 

closure. Upon approval of proposed regulations 

at 43 CFR 2201.8-2(b), newly acquired lands 

would automatically be open to operation of the 

public lands and mineral laws within a specified 

timeframe after acceptance of title unless critical 

resource values such as those listed above 

require closure.

Issuing rights-of-way where there are active 

mining claims is routine and covered by 

legislation and regulation. The right-of-way 

purchaser or permittee is informed of the rights 

of the mining claimant. Mining might 

intermittently or temporarily obstruct the rightof-way.

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. The BLM reviews mining notices 

and plans in the time allotted as identified in the 

regulations. For notice level operations, if time 

permits, a site visit would be conducted for lands 

identified in a mining notice by the geologist 

and an archeologist and biologist if they are 

available. A site visit would always be 

conducted by BLM during the processing of a 

plan of operations.

Mining plans and notice level operations when 

mining claim occupancy is proposed are 

required to have the proper NEPA 

documentation prepared. BLM will work with 

operators to ensure that notices and plans are 

processed efficiently and in a timely manner.

Reclamation plans and bonds are required for 

each notice and plan per regulation. The 

amount of such bonds is for the full amount 

required to complete 100% of the required 

reclamation as if BLM were required to hire 

independent contractors to do the work.

In addition to the requirements of 43 CFR 3715 

and 43 CFR 3809, State and Federal law 

provides for numerous other permits including, 

but not limited to: an Aquifer Protection Permit 

and a NPDES permit both issued by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality, a Section 

404 permit issued by the 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.

BLM will cooperate all interested agencies to 

ensure that operations conducted on BLMadministered 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 must meet the 

specific requirements of 43 CFR 3715.2. At a 

minimum, all occupancies will meet the 

requirements and standard stipulations for 

occupancy contained in the BLM Arizona 

Programmatic EA for Mining Claim Use and 

Occupancy.

Surface disturbing activities at a level greater 

than casual use in wilderness areas, national 

monuments, areas of critical environmental 

concern and other areas identified in 43 CFR 

3809.11 will require a plan of operations before 

mining can begin. Operations proposed for 

lands that are withdrawn from mineral entry will 

cause BLM to initiate a validity examination and 

will 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 person of 

ordinary prudence would be justified in the 

further expenditure of his labor and means with 
Chapter 2

308

a reasonable prospect of success in developing a 

valuable mine.

Leasable Minerals

Lease applications will be considered on a caseby-case basis. Leases will be issued with needed 

restrictions to protect resources. Stipulations to 

protect important surface values will be based on 

interdisciplinary review of individual proposals 

and environmental analysis.

Wild Horses and Burros

Continue to monitor burro numbers and habitat 

conditions in the Lake Pleasant Herd 

Management Area.

During times of high water levels in Lake 

Pleasant, relocate burros trapped on temporary 

islands if they are in danger, or if there is 

insufficient habitat for survival.

Burros will be removed from the herd area as 

funding is available with the target of reaching a 

population of zero.

Lands and Realty

Land Tenure Adjustments

Consolidate land ownership to achieve 

management efficiency and reduced costs:

Consider and evaluate the overall 

combination of all resource values and 

factors including wildlife habitat, 

riparian areas, wetlands, cultural 

resources, recreation opportunities, 

scenic value, watershed protection, 

timber and mining resources, 

rangelands, public access and a broad 

array of recreation uses. 

Consider the use of patent reservations 

and habitat management plans when 

conveying lands from Federal 

ownership 

Consider and evaluate making public 

land available for disposal to local 

governments and non-profits under the 

Recreation & Public Purposes Act. 

Obtain reasonable public and 

administrative access to BLM-managed 

lands in the following ways: 

Require reciprocal access easements to 

meet specific program needs. 

Consider and manage the use of public 

lands for rights-of-way, right-of-way 

reservations, easement, permits, leases, 

licenses, agreements, etc, except for 

those areas identified exclusion areas. 

Secure access easements as needed to 

prevent closing of access to public 

lands. 

Consider and evaluate in land 

adjustment actions (including disposal, 

acquisition, sale, donation) the 

following: 

o Reduction of BLM administrative 

costs and improvement of 

management efficiency. 

o Identify for disposal relatively small, 

isolated, inaccessible tracts of BLM 

that do not meet resource 

management needs. 

o Consider and evaluate conveyances 

or acquisitions that would reduce 

conflicts between BLM and nonFederal landowner objectives, 

especially when conflicts are 

adversely affecting BLM 

management. 

Consider opportunities to acquire non-Federal 

lands by purchase or exchange (willing seller) 

where lands are valuable for achieving BLM 

resource management objectives. Evaluate the 

following: 

key wildlife habitat, fisheries 

management areas and habitat for 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species 

designated wilderness and other special 

management areas 

lands with historical or important 

heritage resources, outstanding scenic 

values, or critical ecosystems when 

these resources are threatened by change 
Chapter 2

309

of use, or when management may be 

enhanced by public ownership 

lands with water frontage, such as lakes, 

streams, flood plains, wetlands, and 

associated riparian ecosystems 

land with important value for outdoor 

recreation purposes 

land needed for visual resource 

protection 

lands needed to bring existing BLM 

land into consolidated geographical 

units. 

lands that will maintain or stabilize the 

economies of local government 

lands where BLM programs will provide 

the best insurance against existing or 

potential uses that are incompatible with 

effective watershed management. 

consider partial interest acquisitions, 

such as access, minerals, water rights or 

conservation easements to benefit public 

land management. 

consider public/private land 

management and stewardship 

opportunities to assist in the 

management of BLM-managed lands

consider disposal of Federal subsurface 

estate under non-Federal surface estate 

on a case-by-case basis. Seek 

opportunities to consolidate surface and 

mineral ownership.

Utility and Transportation Corridors and 

Communication Sites

Corridors to be designated in the Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs) and EIS should be 

considered on the basis of their suitability to 

accommodate right-of-way for facilities of 

particular threshold sizes or volumes. A corridor 

is defined only if it contains or is planned for 

one or more of the following major facilities:

natural gas and other pipelines are at 

least10 inches in diameter, 

electric transmission facilities have a 

capacity of 115 kV lines or greater 

voltage, 

significant canals are those which 

provide delivery of water to urban areas, 

and

transportation facilities are those 

formally defined as Current or Proposed 

Roads of regional Significance or 

Current or Proposed Major Arterials 

(functional class) identified by a local 

government jurisdiction as regionally 

significant and projected to carry 20,000 

or more vehicles per day by the year 

2015. 

Utilities, whether interstate, intrastate, or local, 

should be co-located in designated corridors to 

the maximum degree possible to minimize

impacts to BLM-administered lands.

Transportation routes, whether interstate, 

intrastate, or local, should be co-located with 

utilities in designated corridors to the maximum 

degree possible to minimize impacts to BLMadministered lands.

BLM will strive to coordinate applicable 

transportation-related planning efforts for the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area with the 

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), 

the Maricopa County Department of 

Transportation (MCDOT), and the Maricopa 

Association of Governments (MAG), and 

Yavapai County.

Smaller utility lines needed for local service in 

the vicinity of the corridors should be collocated 

within a corridor unless doing so would limit the 

opportunity to collocate additional major utility 

lines in the corridor.

Avoidance of sensitive or special resources is a 

primary consideration in future planning and 

designation of utility corridors.

BLM's planning should promote, whenever 

possible, optimal energy transfer efficiency and 

support alternative energy sources such as use of 

photovoltaic cells (solar energy) and wind 

power.
Chapter 2

310

In February 2003, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) issued the National Strategy for 

the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures 

and Key Assets (DHS 2003) which summarized 

the initial assessment of, and planning to protect 

against, vulnerabilities to the terrorist threat. As 

DHS continues to carry out its mandate, the 

designation of utility and transportation corridor 

location and the planning and maintenance of 

utilities, railroads, and Federal, State, and 

interstate highways that cross BLMadministered lands, will be consistent with any 

directives, policies, and procedures that DHS 

may institute to minimize vulnerabilities to the 

energy grid.

Whenever possible, utility transmission lines 

will be designed and/or routed so as to minimize 

adverse visual impacts to the surrounding lands 

and vistas.

BLM's utility corridor designations must be 

consistent with authority granted under FLPMA 

Title V, Sections 501–511 (43 USC 1761–1771), 

the Mineral Leasing Act of 1928 (CFR 2880) 

and the BLM Right-of-Way Manual, Sections 

2801.11 and 2801.12.

In accordance with Executive Order No. 13212, 

the Energy Project Streamlining process (signed 

May 18, 2001), Federal energy-related planning 

must serve to expedite the production, 

transmission, or conservation of energy.

BLM will continue to cooperate as a full partner 

(with U.S. Forest Service, APS, and SRP, in 

AZ) in the Western Utility Group, whose 

mission is to facilitate an exchange of 

information and coordinate planning efforts 

between Federal agencies and utility providers 

throughout the western U.S.

BLM will, as appropriate, coordinate 

communication-related planning efforts with the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

BLM's planning related to telecommunication 

infrastructure must, in accordance with the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, help facilitate 

implementation of wireless telephone systems, 

in compliance with existing law, by making 

Federal lands and facilities available for 

communication sites.

Land Uses Requiring Permits

The common land uses requiring permits are 

commercial photography, apiaries, geological 

and hydrological testing, and some military 

activities. The recipients of R&PP leases or 

patents are State and local governments and 

qualified nonprofit organizations.

ENTIRE PLANNING AREA

Fire Management

Fire suppression will be carried out in a manner 

consistent with Interagency Standards for Fire 

and Aviation Operations, which is updated on an 

annual basis by the National Interagency Fire 

Center. Logistical support, operation and 

coordination, and policies and procedures for 

mobilization of fire fighting resources are 

outlined in the Southwest Area Mobilization 

Guide. This guide provides direction for Federal 

and State agencies Arizona, New Mexico and 

Texas.

BLM consulted with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) in 1993 on the 

effects of fire management in the Perry Mesa 

National Register District, in what is now Agua 

Fria National Monument. The two agencies 

agreed that emphasis will be placed on avoiding 

direct disturbances to archaeological sites from 

fire initiation, management, and suppression.

This approach is applicable to the entire 

planning area, within and beyond the monument. 

In the past decade, efforts have been undertaken 

to fulfill this objective in order to protect known 

sites in the national monument as well as in 

other areas. 

Fire management will continue to avoid the 

physical disturbance of known archaeological 

sites or sites found during fire management 

activities. Fires will not be intentionally started 

at known sites. Archaeologists will serve as 

resource advisors for fire management and help 
Chapter 2

311

develop and implement fire and fuels 

management plans, which would address effects 

on cultural resources. Fire crews will be 

educated about the need to protect cultural 

resources.

Public Health and Safety

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.

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 al types of hazardous 

materials and waste management and all types of 

fire management.

Complete site-specific inventories when lands 

are being disposed or acquired. It is 

departmental policy to minimize potential 

liability of the Department and its bureaus by 

acquiring property that is no contaminated 

unless directed by Congress, court mandate, or 

as determined by the Secretary.

Inspect mining and milling sites to determine 

appropriate management for hazardous 

materials.

Identify parties responsible for contamination 

who will be liable for cleanup and resource 

damage costs, as prescribed by law.

Cultural Resources

Reviews of proposed land use authorizations and 

surface disturbing activities will include records 

searches and field inventories, at the appropriate 

levels of intensity defined in BLM‘s Manual 

8110, Identifying and Evaluating Cultural 

Resources. 

Land use authorizations will include stipulations 

requiring users/operators to cease work and 

notify the BLM in the event of a discovery of 

cultural resources. 

The BLM will develop Cultural Resource 

Project Plans for protection or interpretation 

projects that require precise descriptions of 

implementation procedures, workforce, 

scheduling, equipment, and supplies. Project 

planning will be implemented following 

guidance in BLM‘s Manual 8130, Planning for 

Uses of Cultural Resources.

Paleontological Resources

For all authorized surface disturbing activities.

Inventories will be conducted on a caseby-case basis, as deemed necessary by 

the authorized officer, for each proposed 

surface-disturbing activity to ensure 

maintenance or integrity of 

paleontological values. 

User/operators shall be responsible for 

informing all persons associated with a 

project that they shall be subject to 

prosecution for damaging, altering, 

excavating, or removing any vertebrate 

or noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate or plant fossils on site. 

If vertebrate or noteworthy occurrences 

of invertebrate or plant fossils are 

discovered, the user/operator shall 

suspend all operations that further 

disturb such materials and immediately 

contact the authorized officer. 

User/operators shall not resume until 

written authorization to proceed is 

issued by the authorized officer. 

Within five working days, the 

authorized officer will evaluate the 

discovery and inform the operator of 

actions that will be necessary to prevent 

loss of significant scientific values. 

The user/operator shall be responsible 

for the cost of any mitigation required 

by the authorized officer. 

Upon verification from the authorized 

officer that the required mitigation has 
Chapter 2

312

been completed, the operator shall be 

allowed to resume operations. 

Grazing

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. Also, 

monitoring will be used to assess the 

effectiveness of changes brought about by new 

management practices.

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.

Consider deferment of livestock 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 is assured 

through issuance of the grazing permit.

One time travel to access sick or injured 

livestock away from designated routes is 

authorized to transport the animal to a medical 

facility.

Any compensation for a loss of range 

improvements within these pastures will 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 will follow 

guidance provided in BLM handbook on 

Fencing No. 1741-1

Threatened or Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as 

amended, provides for the protection of 

threatened, endangered and proposed threatened

or endangered species of plants and animals.

The following requirements are prescribed in the 

BLM's Manual 6840: 

1. The BLM shall conserve T/E species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend and shall 

use existing authority in furtherance of the 

purposes of the ESA. Specifically the BLM 

shall:

a. Determine, to the extent practical, the 

occurrence and distribution of all T/E 

species on lands administered by BLM, 

and evaluate the significance of lands 

administered by BLM in the 

conservation of those species.

b. Identify land administered by BLM 

that is essential habitat and designated 

Critical Habitat of T/E species, and 

prescribe management for the 

conservation of these habitats in land 

use plans.

c. Develop and implement management 

plans that will ensure the conservation 

of T/E species and their habitats.

d. Evaluate ongoing management 

activities to ensure T/E species 

conservation objectives are being met.

e. Ensure that all activities affecting the 

populations and habitats of T/E species 

are designed to be consistent with 

recovery needs and objectives.

2. The BLM shall ensure that all actions 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM 

are in compliance with the ESA. To accomplish 

this, the BLM shall:

a. Screen all proposed actions to 

determine if T/E species or their habitat 

may be affected. Normally the 

environmental analysis process is used.
Chapter 2

313

b. Initiate consultation with the 

FWS/NMFS, as appropriate, for those 

actions that may affect T/E species or 

their habitats.

c. Not carry out any actions that would 

cause any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources or reduce the 

future management options for the 

species involved until the consultation 

proceedings are completed and a final 

decision has been reached.

d. Ensure that no BLM action will 

adversely affect the likelihood of 

recovery of any T/E species.

3. The BLM shall cooperate with the 

FWS/NMFS in planning and providing for the 

recovery of T/E species. To accomplish this

BLM shall:

a. Participate on recovery teams and in 

recovery plan preparation, as well as 

State or regional working teams 

responsible for T/E species recovery.

b. Review technical and agency review 

drafts of recovery plans for species 

affected by BLM management to ensure 

that proposed actions assigned to BLM 

are technically and administratively 

feasible and consistent with BLM's 

mission and authority.

c. Ensure that the decisions, terms, and 

conditions of Resource Management 

Plans, and more detailed site-specific 

plans, prepared for lands covered by 

previously approved recovery plans are 

consistent with meeting recovery plan 

objectives.

4. The BLM shall retain in Federal ownership all 

habitats essential for the survival or recovery of 

any T/E species, including habitat used 

historically by these species.

5. Species proposed for listing as T/E and 

proposed Critical Habitat shall be managed with 

the same level of protection provided for T/E 

species except that formal consultations are not 

required. The BLM shall confer with the 

FWS/NMFS on any action that will adversely 

affect a proposed species or proposed critical 

habitat.

6. Candidate species will be managed so as not 

to contribute to the need for them to become 

listed as threatened or endangered.

2.10 Implementation 

and Monitoring

2.10.1 Implementation

Many land use plan decisions are implemented 

or become effective upon approval of the RMP.

Examples of such decisions include the 

following:

land health standards and the DFC, 

land use allocations, and

all Special Area Designations such 

as ACECs.

Management actions that require more sitespecific project planning as funding becomes 

available will require further environmental 

analysis. Decisions to implement site-specific 

projects are subject to administrative 

review when such decisions are made.

BLM will continue to involve and collaborate 

with the public while implementing this plan.

Opportunities to become involved in the plan 

implementation and monitoring will include 

development of partnerships and communitybased citizen working groups. BLM and citizens 

can collaboratively develop site-specific 

implementation plans that mutually benefit 

public land resources, local communities, and 

the people who live, work, or play on the public 

lands.
Chapter 2

314

2.10.2 Monitoring

Monitoring of management actions and their 

outcomes is a critical component adaptive 

management. Measuring changes resulting from 

management actions is necessary for 

determining success or the need for a different 

management approach.

BLM monitors many activities and events. For 

example, grazing utilization and vegetation 

trends are measured to support decisions on 

allotment Standards and Guidelines 

evaluations. OHV events are monitored to 

determine that permit stipulations are followed 

and necessary site rehabilitation is undertaken.

Effective monitoring is the process of collecting 

data and information in order to determine 

whether or not desired outcomes (expressed as 

goals and objectives in the land use plan) are 

being met (or progress is being made toward 

meeting them) as the allowable uses and 

management actions are being implemented. 

The design of monitoring protocols, sampling 

methods, and timing, is a site specific effort for 

many activities and management decisions in 

this document. For those activities, monitoring 

strategies will be developed as part of the 

implementation process. Strategy will identify 

indicators of change, acceptable thresholds, 

methodologies, protocols, and timeframes that 

will be used to evaluate and determine whether 

or not desired outcomes are being achieved. 

Monitoring processes will be designed to collect 

information in the most cost-effective manner 

and may involve sampling or remote sensing. 

Some monitoring may be conducted by other 

agencies or by citizens. It is not necessary or 

desirable to monitor every management action 

or direction. Unnecessary detail and 

unacceptable costs are avoided by focusing on 

key monitoring questions and proper sampling 

methods. 

Much of the monitoring conducted by BLM 

follows standardized methods and protocols. 

These standardized methodologies are usually 

described in program manuals or handbooks. 

Monitoring methodologies conducted for 

grazing management can be found in:

Indicators of Rangeland Health, 

Technical Reference 1734-6 Rangeland 

Monitoring and Evaluation

TR - 4401 Planning for Monitoring

TR - 4403 Utilization Studies

TR - 4404 Sampling Vegetation 

Attributes

TR - 4409 Rangeland Inventory and 

Monitoring

Monitoring methodologies for various wildlife 

studies can be found in the following.

For monitoring stream proper 

functioning condition:

PFC Monitoring is done using 

Process for Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition, Technical 

Reference TR 1737-9 (1993), and

A User Guide to Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition and 

Supporting Science for Lotic Areas, 

TR 1737-15 (1998).

For monitoring vegetation changes, 

rangeland monitoring techniques as 

described above may be used.

In addition, guidance may be found in 

Sampling Vegetation Attributes, 

Interagency Technical Reference (1996)

Riparian Bank Alteration monitoring is 

conducted according to Phoenix District 

protocols as document on the Riparian 

Woody Species Utilization Monitoring 

form.

Monitoring for many activities is designed as the 

need arises. Monitoring of many permitted 

activities involve determination of compliance 

with standards, stipulations, or restrictions in the 

permit. These are permit or authorization 

specific and would require periodic site 

inspections.

Other monitoring activities are designed on site. 

For example, monitoring for the effects of a 
Chapter 2

315

permitted recreation event may involve photo 

points to document changes caused by the event, 

measurements of route widths may be made at 

selected locations before and after the event, soil 

compaction may be measured before and after 

the event using a soil penetrometer. Each of 

these is designed for a particular purpose and 

may be of short duration.

Monitoring of recreation uses over longer 

durations would be designed to fit the need to 

measure management success. For instance, the 

effects of human use of the Agua Fria National 

Monument may include measurements of barren 

areas used for recreation purposes and remeasuring over time to detect changes. 

Vegetation character may be measured in places 

that have a potential to change and would be remeasured periodically to detect if change is 

occurring. The level and intensity of monitoring 

will vary, depending on the sensitivity of the 

resource or area and the scope of the proposed 

management activity. 

Upon RMP implementation, recreation staff, in 

conjunction with interested public, will 

determine specific areas where comprehensive 

site assessments would be initiated to do the 

following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions, settings, 

outcomes and standards, 

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses, and

determine and establish route 

maintenance standards, and document 

the current status of each route.

For some recreation resources, such as OHV 

routes, we have completed a detailed, 

comprehensive, site-specific inventory of all 

motorized (OHV) routes and non-motorized 

trails and associated impacts on public lands 

within the planning area. Changes in route 

location, route extension, cross-country 

motorized travel or vehicle use in closed areas 

will be detected by law enforcement, staff, park 

ranger and volunteer monitoring and field 

patrols. Furthermore, BLM and the BLM‘s 

Resource Advisory Committee are developing 

OHV-based Land Health Standards and 

Guidelines for OHV Management that will 

establish thresholds for continued motorized 

recreation use while maintaining the health of 

the land. Monitoring of motorized recreation 

will be based on these Land Health Standards 

when they are developed and future adjustments 

to motorized recreation will be conducted 

consistent with the Guidelines when they are 

approved.

2.11 Administrative 

Actions

Although BLM's intent and commitment to 

accomplish administrative actions are generally 

addressed in RMP/EIS-level documents, such 

activities are neither land-use-plan-level 

decisions nor implementation-level 

management-action decisions. Administrative 

actions are day-to-day activities conducted by 

BLM, often required by FLPMA but not 

requiring a NEPA analysis or a decision by a 

responsible official to be accomplished.

Examples of administrative actions include 

mapping, surveying, inventorying, monitoring, 

collecting needed information such as research 

and studies, and completing project-specific or 

implementation-level plans.

2.12 Requirements 

for Further 

Environmental 

Analysis

The proposed RMP/EIS is a programmatic 

statement describing the impacts of 

implementing the proposed land use plan 

decisions and management actions described for 

the planning areas.
Chapter 2

316

Land use plan decisions that are implemented 

upon approval of the RMP do not require any 

further environmental analysis or 

documentation. Whenever implementation-level 

plans (e.g. ACEC management plans) are 

prepared, more environmental analysis and 

documentation would be required. Individual 

management actions or projects requiring more 

site-specific project planning also require more 

environmental analysis.

Site-specific environmental analysis and 

documentation (including the use of categorical 

exclusions and determinations of NEPA 

adequacy where suitable) may be prepared for 

one or more individual projects, in accordance 

with management objectives and decisions 

established in the approved land use plan. BLM 

will ensure that the environmental review 

process which includes evaluation of all critical 

elements, including historic propertied, 

traditional cultural properties, and threatened 

and endangered species. In the course of these 

reviews, the BLM will carry out any 

required Section 7 consultations with the 

USFWS and will coordinate with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to ensure 

compliance with the NHPA, in accordance with 

the BLM National Programmatic Agreement and 

Arizona's BLM-SHPO Protocol.

Interdisciplinary impact analysis will be based 

on this and other applicable EISs. If the analysis 

prepared for site-specific projects finds potential 

for significant impacts not already described in 

an existing EIS, another EIS or a supplement to 

an existing EIS may be warranted.

Upon providing public notice of a decision, 

supporting environmental documentation will be 

sent to all affected interests and made available 

to other publics on request. Decisions to 

implement site-specific projects are subject to 

administrative review when such decisions are 

made.

2.13 

Interrelationships

BLM conducts many activities that require 

coordination between State, or other Federal 

agencies. Coordination has been ongoing 

throughout this planning effort. Coordination 

is conducted as a matter of course when 

implementing land use plan decisions through 

project development and site-specific activities.

As a part of this planning effort and in 

implementing on-the-ground activities, BLM has 

requested formal consultation with the USFWS 

on potential impacts to federally listed, 

proposed, and candidate species and designated 

or proposed critical habitat. In April 2003, the 

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 the BLM 

and USFWS regarding project consultation. The 

Agreement also considers effects to, and 

management for, candidate species. A biological 

assessment (BA) was prepared and submitted to 

determine the effect of the Proposed Plan on all 

relevant listed, proposed, and candidate species, 

and associated critical habitat. All anticipated 

environmental effects, conservation actions, 

mitigation, and monitoring were disclosed in the 

BA, including analysis of all direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the Proposed Plan 

analyzed in this FEIS.

The Proposed Plan/FEIS will also be provided to 

the Arizona SHPO to comply with Sections 106 

and 110 of the NHPA. BLM actions will also 

comply with other Federal environmental 

legislation and land use plans, such as the Clean 

Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, and with 

applicable State and local government 

regulations, such as the Sikes Act (16 U.S. 

Code. 670 et seq., as amended; see Section 1.4 

and Appendix 1.D: Relevant Laws, Executive 

Orders, and Memorandums). The Sikes Act 

authorizes the Department of the Interior, in 

cooperation with State agencies responsible for 

administering fish and game laws, to plan, 
Chapter 2

317

develop, maintain, and coordinate programs for 

conserving and rehabilitating wildlife, fish, and 

game on public lands within its jurisdiction. 

These habitat management plans (HMPs) must 

conform to overall land use and other 

management plans for the lands involved. The 

HMPs 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 the appropriate State 

agencies in managing State-listed plant and 

animal species when the State has formally 

made such designations. BLM has two habitat 

HMPs for lands within the planning areas.

These documents have satisfied the Sikes Act 

requirements in the past and will be reviewed in 

the context of these new Agua Rria National 

Monument and Bradshaw Harquahala plans

shortly after the records of decision are signed.

The BLM and AGFD work cooperatively to 

manage resources within the Agua Fria National 

Monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

planning area. The BLM is responsible for 

managing wildlife habitat on BLM land and 

AGFD, through the authority of the Arizona 

Game and Fish Commission, has public trust 

responsibility to manage fish and wildlife. 

Throughout the Proposed Plan/FEIS, the close, 

cooperative nature of the relationship is cited. 

The BLM has a Master Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the AGFD which

establishes protocols that direct the cooperative 

working relationship between the agencies. The 

MOU provides 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, a 

MOU has been signed giving AGFD 

cooperating agency status on BLM planning 

efforts in Arizona. 

Any permit system or restriction of use or access 

would include coordination with other state and 

federal entities that issue use permits on federal 

lands to assure that authorized permittees have 

fair and reasonable access to their permitted 

activity. For example, should a permit system 

be implemented, the BLM will coordinate with 

AGFD to enable coordination of access for 

hunters with valid hunting licenses and permits 

for the affected hunting unit. 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 

the 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, habitat 

manipulation (forage enhancement, burning, 

vegetation clearing, planting, etc.), fence 

construction (enclosures/exclosures), and 

research activities. 

On BLM-managed lands, the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services 

(APHIS-WS) and the AGFD manage animal 

damage control, predator management, control 

of exotic wildlife species, and feral, nonpermitted livestock on BLM-managed lands. A 

1995 MOU recognizes the legal authority of 

APHIS-WS to conduct wildlife damage 

management on BLM-managed lands. The 

BLM acknowledges that authority and will

continue close coordination with APHIS-WS 

and AGFD, as well as the State Land 

Department, State Brand Inspector, and other 

affected agencies on animal damage control 

efforts within the Planning Areas. AGFD 

predator management would continue under 

AGFD strategic plans as well as species 

management plans.

The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) holds many 

withdrawals of BLM-managed land for many 

purposes. Coordination between BLM and the 

BOR occurs regularly regarding these lands. In 

some cases, other entities conduct further 

management of these lands, such as in the case 
Chapter 2

318

of the Lake Pleasant Regional Park. The park is 

managed by Maricopa County Parks and 

Recreation, but the property is held by the 

Bureau of Reclamation as fee simple or 

withdrawn land for the water storage facility. 

BLM, BOR, and Maricopa County coordinate 

closely on actions in and around the Lake 

Pleasant area.

Regional transportation planning and 

construction of roadways and highways is 

generally conducted by State or regional 

agencies, such as Arizona Department of 

Transportation, county departments of 

transportation, and city transportation 

departments. When these agencies plan and 

develop roadways that cross public lands, BLM 

is involved in their design and contributes to the

environmental impact analysis. ADOT-managed 

transportation corridors within or adjacent to the 

planning area include: I-17, US 60, SR 74, 

SR71, SR 89, SR 69, SR 169, L303, and L101. 

Continued urban growth in the region will 

necessitate future modifications of transportation 

systems within ADOT rights-of-way. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU No. 

AZ-931-0309 AMENDMENT #2 signed March 

21, 2006) defines the roles and responsibilities, 

as well as working relationships between BLM, 

ADOT, and the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA.) The MOU ―outlines 

policies and procedures for the Arizona 

Department of Transportation (ADOT), Arizona 

Division of Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), and Arizona Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to establish and improve 

cooperative working relationships for 

implementing the BLM/FHWA Interagency 

Agreement Number AA-851-IA2-40 of July 27, 

1982 (attached as Appendix A). Secifically by:

1 Developing a mutual understanding 

of the missions, goals, constraints, 

and responsibilities of the BLM, 

ADOT, and FHWA as they relate to 

land and resource management 

practices on public lands under or 

contiguous to ADOT highways; 

ADOT development and operation 

practices on highways located on 

public lands; and public lands 

needed for transportation purposes;

2 Defining BLM, ADOT, and FHWA 

organizational structures and 

identifying areas of cooperation to 

facilitate coordinated work efforts;

3 Developing procedures and 

standardized methods for 

communication and

4 Minimizing duplication of work and 

streamlining work processes.

This MOU provides for a coordinated approach 

to accomplish land and resource management, 

and transportation development and operation 

management in completing BLM, ADOT, and 

FHWA goals and objectives. Such coordination 

is subject to the respective authorities of each 

agency, and is designed to reduce and, if 

possible, eliminate duplication of work; to 

establish procedures for streamlining work 

processes; to ensure each agency is provided 

sufficient lead time for proper sequential 

function; to make more efficient use of and 

share available resources; and to develop and 

execute action programs which maximize 

responsiveness to public needs and concerns.‖

The MOU divides responsibilities by 

establishing: 

1 FHWA is responsible for administration 

and management of the Federal-aid 

highway program and application for 

right-of-way appropriation consistent 

with 23 C.F.R. 710.601 Subpart F.

2 ADOT is responsible for the design, 

construction and management of the 

highway system within Arizona for 

which it has responsibility.

3 BLM is responsible for administration 

and management of certain public lands 

and interests in lands within Arizona.

For transportation planning and construction by 

other agencies, BLM will coordinate with the 

responsible agency to develop design features 

that minimize the fragmenting effect of the 

planned roadway. BLM will work with the 

responsible agency to evaluate and incorporate 

safe and effective wildlife crossing to ensure 
Chapter 2

319

long term species viability and maintaining 

habitat connectivity. Where planned roadways 

potentially fragment other resources, such as 

(but not limited to) recreation routes or trails, 

grazing allotments, or mining operations, BLM 

will work with the responsible agency to provide 

continued connectivity for those purposes as 

well. BLM will also work with the agency to 

provide continued safe access to public lands 

from any developed roadway for recreation and 

other public land users.

2.14 Comparison of 

Impacts by 

Alternative

A summary comparison of impacts by 

Alternative can be found on Table 2-8.
Chapter 2

Table 2-8:

Summary Comparison 

of Impacts by 

Alternative
322

Table 2-8. Summary Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.6 Impacts to Special Area Designations

4.6.1 From 

Management of Special 

Area Designations

No impacts. -Increased visitation 

along Bloody Basin Rd 

Back Country Byways 

could lead to potential 

degradation of suitable

WSR values.

-Similar effects in 

Hassayampa River 

Wilderness from 

Constellation Mine Rd 

Byway.

-Impacts similar to Alt B. 

No impact is expected 

from WSR evaluations or 

ACECs.

-Harquahala Mountain 

ACEC would reduce 

effects of vehicles on the 

Harquahala Mountains 

Wilderness.

Impacts similar to Alt C 

except no new byways.

-No new byway impacts.

-Impacts of Harquahala 

Mountain ACEC similar 

to Alt C. -Protection of 

river values along Agua 

Fria tributaries eligible 

for consideration as wild 

and scenic rivers.

4.6.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-No expected impacts.

-Acquiring lands within 

wilderness areas and 

WSR corridors would 

benefit management and 

prevent development 

activities that increase 

disturbance.

-Retaining Yarnell utility 

corridor could degrade 

the wilderness values. 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.6.3 From 

Management of Soil, 

Air, and Water 

Resources

-No impacts are expected.

-Air quality standards 

could reduce fugitive dust 

in ACECs. 

-Inventorying and filing 

water rights in Wilderness 

Areas would preserve the 

wilderness values of 

water sources.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.6.4 From Biological -Management could -Elimination of Larry -Management of -Effects of management -The movement corridors 
323

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

Resource Management enhance suitable WSR 

segments, wilderness 

areas (WA), and ACECs.

Canyon ACEC would 

have no effect.

-Management of 

Harquahala Mountain 

WHA would enhance 

values in Harquahala 

Mountains Wilderness.

-New wildlife waters may 

slightly reduce 

naturalness in wilderness 

areas.

pronghorn WHAs could 

enhance suitable WSR 

segments. 

-Controls on vehicle 

routes and recreational 

development would help 

maintain biological 

resources. 

-Management of the 

Harquahala/Belmont/Big 

Horn wildlife corridor/ 

the Belmont/Big Horn 

WHA would enhance 

values in wilderness.

for wildlife in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt C.

-Impacts of new wildlife 

waters would be similar to 

Alt B.

would protect wildlife 

habitat and help maintain 

natural conditions and 

enhance values in 

wilderness.

-Impacts of new wildlife 

waters would similar to 

Alt B. 

4.6.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. -Development of sites for 

public use could increase 

wildlife disturbance and 

litter. This could slightly 

decrease naturalness in 

wilderness areas. 

-Increased visitor 

education and presence of 

people may reduce illegal 

dumping and other 

undesirable uses, but may 

reduce opportunities for 

solitude

-Conducting cultural 

inventory could reduce 

opportunities for solitude 

during data collection.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except the Badger Springs 

petroglyph site would 

have fewer 

facilities/create fewer 

impacts. 

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except WickenburgVulture SCRMA no 

public use reducing 

impacts in this area.

-Potential impacts would 

be limited to Harquahala 

Mountains Wilderness 

Area and would be the 

same as described for Alt 

B.

4.6.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.6.7 From Recreation 

Management

-Increased visitation is 

expected to increase 

-Back Country allocations 

should protect values 

-Impacts in the AFNM 

similar to Alt B.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

similar to Alt B.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

similar to Alt B.
324

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

motorized use in suitable

WSR segments and 

wilderness areas. This 

could progressively 

degrade values of these 

areas.

-Impacts to ACECs are 

not expected.

along suitable WSR 

segments.

-Front Country/developed 

campgrounds could 

increase motorized 

visits/area of people to 

suitable WSR segment, 

degrading values. -

Hieroglyphic Mtn SRMA 

could diminish solitude. 

-Increased vehicle use 

could increase fugitive 

dust entering Hells 

Canyon Wilderness, 

obscuring vistas. 

-Impacts on Hells 

Canyon Wilderness from 

the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains SRMA would 

be similar to those 

described for Alt B.

-The phase-out of 

motorized activity in the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains 

would enhance solitude, 

naturalness, and visitor 

experience. 

-The Hieroglyphic 

Mountains SRMA would 

be similar to Alt B. 

-No SRP-related impacts 

on wilderness areas, 

ACECs, or back country 

byways are expected. 

4.6.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

-In the AFNM no impacts 

are expected.

-Within BradshawHarquahala, proposed 

projects could lessen the 

quality of the recreation 

setting and viewshed by 

allowing human 

intrusions into visual 

landscapes.

-Managing the Front 

Country to VRM Class III 

could allow visual 

intrusions that degrade 

the scenic quality of the 

suitable WSR segments.

-Other Special Area 

Designations are not 

expected to be affected by 

VRM management.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt B 

except that they would 

mainly be limited to the 

northern WSR segment.

-Managing the 

Hassayampa River 

Wilderness to VRM 

Class II objectives would 

restrict visual impacts of 

projects.

-Impacts to WSR would 

be similar to Alt C.

- Managing the 

Harquahala Mountains 

ACEC to Class I would 

maintain the appearance 

of naturalness across a 

large landscape.

-Managing the Sheep 

Mountain RNA ACEC 

and the Black Butte ONA 

ACEC to Class I would 

retain the natural settings 

of those areas.

-Impacts to WSR would 

be similar to those under 

Alt C. 

-Impacts to wilderness 

areas would be similar to 

Alt A. 

-Managing Harquahala 

Mtn and Black Butte 

ACECs to VRM Class II 

would restrict visual 

intrusions into the 

landscape.

4.6.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-Applying land health 

standards should 

maintain or improve 

habitat characteristics.

-No impacts to 

wilderness areas, 

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt A, 

except riparian grazing 

would be limited to the 

winter season. 

-Riparian and overall 

ecological conditions in 

-Impacts to the riparian 

corridors would be 

similar to those described 

for Alt B, except that 

year-round restriction of 

grazing would further 

improve and enhance the 

-Impacts similar to those 

described for Alt C.

-Impacts similar to Alt B.
325

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

ACECs, or back country 

byways are expected.

the WSR corridor/the 

riparian corridor in the 

Hassayampa River 

Canyon Wilderness 

would improve.

wildlife and scenic 

values. 

4.6.10 From Minerals 

Management

-No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM.

-Mining near wilderness 

areas and along Back 

Country byways could 

reduce solitude, increase 

noise, dust, and traffic; 

and detract from the 

visual setting.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

there is little or 

no leasable or locatable 

mineral potential, and no 

impacts are expected 

from future development.

-Impacts would be similar 

to Alt A, 

-closing Tule Creek 

ACEC to all mineral 

development would 

benefit the resources that 

are important to ACEC 

designation.

-Impacts would be similar 

to Alt B, except areas 

allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

would be closed, thereby 

reducing the potential 

area for ground 

disturbance and 

maintaining the primitive 

open space. 

-Impacts from managing 

Tule Creek ACEC would 

be similar to those 

described for Alt B, 

except that more area 

would be closed to 

mining. 

Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.6.11 From Fire 

Management

-Prescribed burning 

would affect the WSR by 

reducing visual values 

over the short term, until 

vegetation regenerates.

-Air quality/visibility 

could also be negatively 

affected. -Prescribed 

fire could temporarily 

increase runoff and 

erosion along the Agua 

Fria River. 

-Over the long term, use 

of fire as a natural 

process in the AFNM 

should lead to increased 

-Impacts similar to Alt A.

-Visitors would be 

restricted from parts of 

the wilderness during 

prescribed burns. The fire 

damage would detract 

from the visual setting 

until the vegetation 

recovers.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
326

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

ecosystem health.

4.6.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

-Impacts of vegetation 

damage, soil and 

vegetation trampling in 

gathering areas / trailing 

would continue to 

diminish the natural 

setting, especially near 

water sources and in 

canyons.

-Natural landscape 

settings would continue 

to exist in most areas.

Impacts similar to Alt A. -Removing burros from 

the Harquahala HA would 

eliminate impacts to some 

Wilderness Areas.

-Trailing and vegetation 

impacts now occurring in 

Hells Canyon Wilderness 

would continue.

Impacts similar to Alt C. Impacts similar to Alt C.

4.6.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

-No impacts are expected 

on existing ACECs, the 

five wilderness areas, or 

the Harquahala Mountain 

Summit Road Back. 

Country Byway. 

-Routes and 

developments are 

restricted to protect 

values, including riparian 

habitat and wildlife in 

proposed suitable WSR 

segments.

-Impacts of establishing 

the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains SRMA could 

concentrate OHV use, 

and increase traffic, noise, 

and dust at the southwest 

edge of the Hell's Canyon 

wilderness.

-Impacts on suitable WSR 

segments would be 

similar to Alt A.

Impacts similar to Alt B. -Would enhance nonmotorized recreation 

settings and opportunities 

within the Hells Canyon 

wilderness.

-Impacts on suitable WSR 

segments would be the 

same as for Alt A.

Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.6.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

-No direct impacts are 

expected. Indirect 

benefits could retain 

more primitive and 

natural conditions.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.7 Impacts on Lands and Realty Management
327

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.7.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

-Wilderness areas would 

remain closed to rightsof-way and land use 

authorizations.

-Acquiring inholdings 

would block up federal 

ownership in sensitive 

resource areas.

-Special Area 

Designations would not 

preclude developing an 

urban transportation 

network.

-Stipulations consistent 

with the protection of 

Tule Creek ACEC would 

be written into future 

authorizations. 

-Locations, or the terms 

of use and rights-of-way 

could be restricted to 

protect Tule Creek.

-The effects of wilderness 

areas would be the same 

as in Alt A. 

-Lands adjoining 

Harquahala Mountains 

ACEC would be of higher 

priority for acquisition 

than other lands.

-A utility corridor width 

of 2 miles would avoid 

impacts to archaeological

sites.

-The effects of wilderness 

areas would be the same 

as in Alt A.

-The impacts from Tule 

Creek on lands actions 

would be the same as Alt 

B.

-Designating the Agua 

Fria Riparian Corridor 

ACEC would constrain 

the location of rights-ofway in the Black Canyon 

corridor. 

-The impacts from Tule 

Creek and Harquahala 

Mountains ACECs same 

as Alt B. 

-No new rights-of-way 

would be permitted in the 

Baldy Mtn ONA. 

-The effects of WAs 

would be the same as Alt 

A.

Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.7.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-In the AFNM, land 

ownership would not 

change. No new or 

widened transportation 

corridors would be 

designated, though BLM 

might permit new rightsof-way. 

- Lands suitable for 

R&PP use would be 

issued on a case-by-case 

basis.

-Major rights-of-way and 

communication sites 

would be issued across 

public lands on a case-bycase basis.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt A, 

except that the existing 

corridor would be 

narrowed. 

-Future utility uses would 

locate in undisturbed 

areas, resulting in 

possible increased costs. 

-Land acquisition would 

consolidate management 

in five MUs and would 

likely reduce costs. 

-Impacts of land leases 

and patents for R&PP 

would be the same as Alt 

A. 

-Designating corridors 

would prevent the 

-BLM would issue no 

leases or patents for land 

within the AFNM to local 

govts or non-profit 

organizations under 

the R&PP Act. 

-Rights-of-way and 

communication sites 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except the existing 

corridor would be 

eliminated from the 

AFNM.

-Land acquisition would 

be similar to Alt B, 

except that the lands 

would be consolidated 

into six MUs

-Impacts of new rights-ofway would be similar to 

Alt B, except that the 

corridor in BradshawHarquahala would be 

extended, not widened. 

-Land acquisition would 

be similar to similar to Alt 

B, except that lands would 

be consolidated into seven 

MUs.

-Land use authorizations 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except that no new 

electric or gas corridors 

would be designated.

-Impacts of new rights-ofway within the AFNM 

would be the same as Alt 

B. 

-Land acquisition would 

be similar to Alt C. 

-Impacts of land leases 

and patents for R&PP use 

would be similar to Alt A. 

-Land use authorizations 

would be the same as Alt 

B; however the Black 

Canyon corridor 

modifications would 

better meet projected 

demands.
328

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

proliferation of major 

utility systems across 

public lands.

4.7.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

-Efforts to minimize 

impacts to soils, water, 

and air would result in 

increased project costs 

and possible project 

redesign or shifted 

location.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.7.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

-Acquisition of lands to 

enhance management of 

species is given a high 

priority and would result 

in acquisition of those 

areas in preference to 

others.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.7.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

-The potential discovery 

of cultural and historical 

sites could cause 

restricted land use 

authorizations.

Mitigation could increase 

project costs.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.7.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

-No impact is expected, 

but should resources be 

discovered, land use 

authorizations could be 

restricted or relocated. 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.7.7 From Recreation 

Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.7.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

-Modification of rightsof-way to achieve VRM 

objectives could lead to 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.
329

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

increased costs.

4.7.9 From Rangeland 

Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.7.10 From Minerals 

Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.7.11 From Fire 

Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.7.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.7.13 From Management 

of Trans and Public 

Access

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.7.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

No impacts expected. -Allocations to maintain

wilderness characteristics 

would be closed to rightsof-way and inconsistent 

land use authorizations.

Future utilities and 

private requestors would 

find other routes through 

these areas.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.8 Impacts on Soil Resources

4.8.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

-70,900 acres of AFNM, 

including Perry Mesa 

ACEC (9,580 acres) 

would be protected from 

increased erosion and 

decreased soil 

moisture/productivity by 

limiting motor vehicle 

use.

-Existing designated 

Wilderness would be 

-Impacts similar to Alt A 

for suitable WSR 

segments. 

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

closing the fenced area of 

the Tule Creek ACEC 

(640 acres) to motorized 

vehicles and grazing 

could reduce soil 

disturbance and 

compaction.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt A for 

suitable WSR corridors.

-In BradshawHarquahala 8 ACECs, 

totaling 55,710 acres, 

would reduce soil erosion 

and improve soil moisture 

and productivity.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

similar to Alt C.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

10 ACECs, totaling 

192,800 acres, impacts 

similar to those under Alt 

C.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

similar to Alt C.

-In BradshawHarquahala, ACEC 

(89,970 acres) impacts 

similar to Alt C.
330

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

managed to maintain soil 

productivity. 

4.8.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-Short term disturbance 

may occur from current 

activities. -In BradshawHarquahala, land disposal 

and subsequent 

development could result 

in loss of soil 

productivity. Short term 

disturbance could result 

from utility, 

transportation/communica

tions rights-of-way.

-Impacts from utility and 

utility corridor 

development would be 

mitigated.

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected 

from land tenure 

adjustments or from 

utility and transportation 

corridors or 

communication sites.

-In BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt A.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.8.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

-In the AFNM, soil 

resources are expected to 

improve through 

measures to reduce 

loss/improve 

productivity. -No impacts 

expected in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala. 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.8.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

-Proposals to improve 

habitat would contribute 

to soil improvement at 

specific locations, 

resulting in an overall 

slight improvement.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.8.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.
331

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.8.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.8.7 From Recreation 

Management

-In the AFNM, current 

recreation management 

practices could cause 

localized soil loss and 

reduced soil productivity.

-Lack of OHV 

management in 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

could lead to 

progressively increasing 

soil erosion, compaction, 

and overall loss of soil 

productivity. 

-Concentrated recreation, 

both motorized and nonmotorized use could 

result in the loss of or 

reduced vegetation cover, 

soil compaction, and 

streambank instability in 

riparian and wash areas, 

thus reducing soil 

moisture and soil 

productivity.

-SRP authorizations are 

mitigated but impacts are 

similar to concentrated 

recreation use.

-Impacts might occur in 

the Front Country and 

Passage RMZ as 

recreation use increases.

-In BradshawHarquahala, vehicle route 

designations and closures 

in Tule Creek ACEC and 

allocations to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

would slightly reduce soil 

impacts.

-Area designations within 

the Castle Hot Springs 

and Harquahala MUs, 

would slightly reduce soil 

disturbance, erosion, and 

compaction by OHV use.

-Selected route closures 

and planned, sited, and 

engineered recreation 

facilities are designed to 

reduce soil impacts of 

recreation activities.

-Soil loss or damage by 

intense non-motorized 

cross-country travel 

similar to Alt A.

-SRP impacts would 

increase from current 

levels but are capped.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

similar to Alt B.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts similar to Alt B, 

but MUs would slightly 

reduce soil disturbance, 

erosion, and compaction 

by OHV use.

-Soil erosion from 

improper events and 

OHV use would be 

lessened by implementing 

vehicle route designations 

throughout the BradshawHarquahala. 

-Soil loss or damage by 

intense non-motorized 

cross-country travel 

similar to Alt A.

-SRP caps are lower, 

impacts would be less 

than Alt B.

Impacts in AFNM similar 

to Alt C, though more 

area would be allocated to 

Back County RMZ.

-Impacts would be 

reduced in the southern 

portion of the castle Hot 

Springs MU by phasing 

out motorized uses.

-Eliminating recreational 

vehicle use in designated 

MUs would reduce soil 

erosion. 

-Increased BLM signing, 

OHV route development 

and connectivity, public 

education, and better 

managed motorized and 

non-motorized recreation 

in SRMAs would lessen 

impacts to soils over the 

long term.

-Soil loss or damage by 

intense non-motorized 

cross-country travel 

similar to Alt A.

-No SRP impacts in 

AFNM, elsewhere, 

impacts similar to Alt B.

Impacts in AFNM similar 

to Alt C and D

-Impacts in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

similar to Alt B.

-Soil loss or damage by 

intense non-motorized 

cross-country travel 

similar to Alt A.

-SRP impacts on the 

AFNM similar to Alt A. 

-Impacts similar to Alt B 

elsewhere.

4.8.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.
332

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.8.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-Implementing guidelines 

adopted in Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Administration

would improve soil 

conditions. 

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except grazing limited in 

riparian areas to the 

winter. 

-Rapid recovery of 

riparian vegetation and 

reduced impacts to soils 

from grazing are 

expected.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except grazing in riparian 

areas would be 

eliminated, increasing soil 

cover and reducing 

streambank damage.

-Cessation of grazing 

throughout the planning 

area would give the 

greatest benefit to soils of 

any Alt.

Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.8.10 From Minerals 

Management

-No impact is expected on 

the AFNM.

-Within the BradshawHarquahala, mining 

activities could cause 

disturbance, compaction 

and erosion. Impacts 

would be mitigated. 

Residual impacts are 

likely to be relatively 

small.

Impacts similar to Alt A. -Impacts on AFNM 

similar to Alt A. 

-Within the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

would be similar to Alt A

except that the closure of 

some areas to mineral 

entry would reduce 

impacts.

-Impacts on AFNM 

similar to Alt A. 

-Within the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

would be similar to Alt C 

except that the closure of 

more areas to mineral 

entry would reduce 

impacts.

In both areas soil impacts 

similar to Alt A.

4.8.11 From Fire 

Management

-The use of heavy 

equipment and 

mechanical thinning of 

trees could increase the 

potential for erosion. Soil 

moisture and productivity 

could be reduced in the 

short term, but increased 

in the long term.

-Prescribed burning 

would reduce soil 

erosion.

-Full suppression in fire 

adapted communities 

could cause herbaceous 

cover to decline with 

-Impacts are similar to 

Alt A, except that fire use 

would be allowed in 

adapted ecosystems.

-When natural fires occur, 

larger wildfires could be 

allowed, resulting in short 

term increases in soil 

loss.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
333

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

related soil effects.

4.8.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

-No impact in the 

AFNM.-Impacts in the 

Lake Pleasant HMA 

would be limited through 

management.

-Impacts in the 

Harquahala HA would 

eventually be eliminated 

through animal removal.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.8.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

-Increased soil erosion is 

expected from increased 

visitation, multiplying 

numbers of routes, and 

greater use of OHVs.

Bank washes could be 

broken down and made 

unstable in wash ―play‖ 

areas.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

might occur in the Front 

Ctry and Passage Zones. 

-The net reduction of 33 

mi of routes would likely 

reduce these effects.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

route closures in Tule 

Creek ACEC and 

allocations to maintain 

wilderness character 

could slightly reduce soil 

disturbance, erosion, and 

compaction by OHV use.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except the net reduction 

of 48 miles of route 

would marginally protect 

more soil resources.

-Reducing vehicle traffic 

routes in the MUs would 

slightly reduce soil 

disturbance, erosion, and 

compaction by OHV use.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt C, 

except would provide the 

most protection due to 

route closures.

-Restricting vehicle use to 

designated routes would 

further reduce soil impacts 

in all other parts of the 

planning area.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

similar to Alt C. 

The reduction in route 

mileage would reduce soil 

disturbance more than Alt 

B and C, but less than Alt 

D.

-Soil erosion caused by 

vehicular travel would be 

curtailed in Tule Creek 

ACEC, and by reducing 

cross-country travel. 

4.8.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics 

No impacts expected. -56,040 acres would be 

allocated for wilderness 

character. 

-Soil disturbances, 

compaction, and erosion 

caused by human induced 

activities would 

be reduced.

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt B except 

that 107,843 acres would 

be allocated. 

-Soil disturbance would 

be reduced the most in 

this Alt.

-Impacts would be similar 

to Alt B except that 

140,235 acres would be 

allocated. This would 

provide more protection 

than Alt B, but less than 

other alternatives.

-Impacts are similar to 

Alt B except that 88,179

acres would be allocated. 

-Soil protection would be 

more than Alts B and D, 

but less than Alts C and 

D.

4.9 Impacts on Air Quality

4.9.1 From Management -Restrictions resulting -Recreation prescription -Designation of Bk Ctry -The relative shift in air -Site-Specific 
334

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

of Special Area 

Designations

from Special Area 

Designations are likely to 

increase emissions 

because of population 

growth and increases in 

OHV use.

-In BradshawHarquahala, BLM would 

continue to prohibit OHV 

use in five wilderness 

areas (96,820 acres) and 

encourage OHV use on 

one back country byway 

(Harquahala Mountain 

Summit Road).

in ACECs, RNAs and 

SRMAs would shift OHV 

users to sites where OHV 

recreation is allowed and 

intensify use in remaining 

areas. The result would 

be (1) reduced localized 

air quality impacts in the 

new restricted areas and 

(2) increased temporary 

and localized, degraded 

air quality in the 

remaining OHV areas. 

byways could attract 

more regional OHV 

users. This is not 

expected to increase 

regional OHV use or 

regional fugitive dust 

emissions.

-In BradshawHarquahala, seven 

ACECs would further 

shift OHV use and 

possible air quality 

impacts.

quality impacts between 

newly restricted areas and 

the remaining accessible 

areas would be greatest.

-Air quality effects and 

fugitive dust emissions 

from vehicular travel and 

OHV use would be 

curtailed by eliminating or 

mitigating recreation 

vehicle use in the Sheep 

Mountain RNA.

prescriptions and 

restrictions applied on 

ACECs along with 

cultural and wildlife 

management prescriptions 

would shift the locations 

of increases in OHV use 

and resulting fugitive dust 

and emissions.

4.9.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-Land disposal actions 

would not delay the 

region's compliance with 

the air quality standards.

-New residential 

development on 

previously rural BLM 

land would have a minor 

effect immediately 

downwind from each new 

development.

-Implementing available 

dust control best 

management practices 

during construction of 

facilities, roads and 

utilities would ensure that 

impacts would be 

temporary and limited to 

the immediate area of the 

construction.

-Ongoing maintenance

-Narrowing the existing 

utility corridor is not 

expected to affect air 

quality, but it would shift 

the location of future air 

quality emissions into a 

smaller area.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

new utility corridors 

would be designated for 

future expected demands. 

Any such construction 

would likely generate 

fugitive dust and tailpipe 

emissions.

-Impacts from ongoing 

maintenance and 

improvements of facilities 

and roadways would be 

similar to Alt A.

-In the AFNM, 

elimination of Black 

Canyon utility corridor 

would maintain current 

emissions. Impacts from 

ongoing maintenance 

would be similar to Alt A.

-In BradshawHarquahala impacts 

would be similar to Alt B.

-Any construction in nonattainment areas would be 

subject to comply with 

county air quality rules.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to those 

described for Alt C.

-The portion of the Black 

Canyon Multi-Use 

corridor would be 

extended. If utilities elect 

to use this corridor in the 

future, they would 

generate criteria pollutants 

and fugitive dust through 

the use of heavy 

equipment.

Impacts similar to Alt C.
335

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

and improvement of 

facilities and roadways 

would require use of 

construction equipment. 

This would generate 

fugitive dust and tailpipe 

emissions. 

4.9.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Improvements resulting 

from management of soil, 

water, and air resources 

are expected to reduce 

emissions of fugitive 

dust.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.9.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

-In the AFNM, measures 

to protect biological 

resources, including the 

use of prescribed fire may 

result in small amounts of 

temporary, localized 

emissions.

-In BradshawHarquahala, measures to 

protect ground cover, 

biological areas, and 

habitats would minimize 

impacts.

-Implementation of Land 

Health Standards would 

reduce production of 

windblown fugitive dust 

not related to roads.

Impacts similar to Alt A. -Limitations in WHAs 

and ACECs would 

improve air quality in 

these areas. Emissions 

might increase in 

remaining areas where 

OHV use and recreational 

site developments are 

allowed.

-Motor vehicle routes that 

fragment pronghorn 

habitat and cross known 

movement corridors 

would be closed, limited, 

or mitigated.

-The shift in impacts 

between newly restricted 

areas and the remaining 

areas would be greatest 

under Alt D.

Impacts similar to Alt C.

4.9.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

No impacts expected. -Increased visitation to 

cultural sites developed 

for public use is expected 

to slightly increase 

emissions of criteria 

-Impacts similar to Alt B 

except to a lesser degree 

due to less High Public 

Use designations.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

from vehicle traffic would 

be limited to Bloody 

Basin Road and the 

Pueblo la Plata 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be lower than Alt 

B and greater than Alt C 

and D.

-In the Bradshaw-
336

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

pollutants and fugitive 

dust.

area. Levels of airborne 

pollutants would be lower 

than under Alts B or C.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 

impacts generated by 

site visits would be lower 

than Alts B and C.

Harquahala, impacts 

would likely be lower 

than Alt B and greater 

than Alt C and D.

4.9.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.9.7 From Recreation 

Management

-Current recreation uses 

could generate emissions 

of criteria pollutants and 

fugitive dust from OHV 

travel, as well as 

emissions and smoke 

from campfires and 

stoves.

-Prohibiting crosscountry, OHV use in the 

AFNM would reduce 

levels of criteria 

pollutants and fugitive 

dust. In BradshawHarquahala OHV travel 

would generate increased 

emissions of criteria 

pollutants and fugitive 

dust.

-Non-motorized crosscountry travel can cause 

trailing, erosion and dust.

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt A, 

except increased 

management actions in 

SRMAs and RMZs are 

expected to locally 

address production of 

fugitive dust and could 

reduce dust emissions in 

those areas.

-Building and 

maintaining roadways, 

trails, and recreation 

facilities would generate 

temporary and short-lived 

emissions of criteria 

pollutants and fugitive 

dust from heavy 

equipment and 

earthmoving.

-Impacts from nonmotorized recreation 

similar to Alt A.

-In the AFNM impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except that more vehicle 

routes would be closed or 

limited to motorized 

vehicles.

-In BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except BLM would 

designate seven ACECs, 

further shifting OHV use 

and possible air quality 

impacts.

-Implementation of 

SRMAs could reduce air 

quality effects/fugitive 

dust emitted by improper 

activity, scheduled OHV 

events/ intensive OHV 

use.

-Impacts from nonmotorized recreation 

similar to Alt A.

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt C except 

that: The relative shift in 

impacts between newly 

restricted areas and the 

remaining areas would be 

greatest because of 

restrictions on the most 

land.

-In the AFNM, BLM 

would issue no SRPs.

This would lead to a 

decrease in emissions of 

criteria pollutants.

-Closing more routes 

would improve air quality 

and lessen dust emissions.

-Impacts of SRMAs 

similar to Alt C.

-Impacts from nonmotorized recreation 

similar to Alt A.

Impacts similar to Alt C.

-Impacts from nonmotorized recreation 

similar to Alt A.

4.9.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

No impacts expected. Restrictions to 

development may slightly 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
337

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

reduce dust emissions.

4.9.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-May increase production 

of windblown dust in 

areas denuded by frequent 

livestock concentration.

-Implementation of 

Rangeland Health 

Standards and Guidelines 

for Grazing Management 

is expected to reduce dust 

emissions by increasing 

ground cover.

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except winter season use 

of riparian areas would 

lead to increased 

vegetation densities in 

those areas, slightly 

reducing localized 

windblown dust.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except closure of riparian 

areas to livestock grazing 

year round would lead to 

higher vegetation 

densities and more rapid 

growth than Alt B.

-Cessation of grazing 

would result in overall 

increases in ground cover, 

reducing windblown dust 

emissions more than any 

other alternative.

Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.9.10 From Minerals 

Management

-No impact is expected on 

the AFNM.

-Within the BradshawHarquahala, 

mining/associated 

activities could cause 

localized increases in 

fugitive dust/ vehicular

exhaust. These are 

expected to be relatively 

small.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. -Alt D would reduce the 

amount of land open 

mining more than other 

alternatives. This action 

would reduce emissions of 

criteria pollutants and 

fugitive dust.

Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.9.11 From Fire 

Management

-Use of prescribed fire 

would generate short term 

smoke emissions. Fire 

prescriptions minimize 

smoke drift into 

populated areas and Class 

I or II airsheds.

-The use of heavy 

equipment and the 

mechanical thinning of 

trees would generate 

emissions of criteria 

pollutants as well as 

-Impacts similar to Alt A 

except:

Naturally occurring 

wildfires could be 

managed to meet resource 

objectives.

-The opportunity for 

smoke drift into 

populated areas and/or 

Class I or II airsheds 

would increase over Alt 

A.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
338

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

fugitive dust.

4.9.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected.

4.9.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

-Prohibiting cross-country 

OHV use in the AFNM 

would reduce levels of 

criteria pollutants and 

fugitive dust.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

OHV travel would 

generate increased 

emissions of criteria 

pollutants and fugitive 

dust.-Any potential 

opening of new routes 

would increase fugitive 

dust during construction 

as well as increase 

emissions created by 

vehicles once the route is 

opened. 

-In the AFNM, 134 miles 

of route would be left 

open and 37 net miles of 

route would be closed.

Route closures could 

impacts.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

routes would be reduced 

by 169 miles. Route 

closures would 

concentrate more vehicles 

on remaining roads and 

thereby increase localized 

air quality impacts and 

fugitive dust levels.

-Building and 

maintaining routes would 

generate temporary and 

short-lived emissions and 

fugitive dust from heavy 

equipment and 

earthmoving.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except that more vehicle 

routes would be closed or 

limited to motorized 

vehicles (48 miles) with 

123 miles of route would 

be left open.

-In BradshawHarquahala, impacts of

OHV use would be 

similar to Alt B except 

BLM would designate 

seven ACECs, further 

shifting OHV use and 

possible air quality 

impacts.

-In the AFNM, negative 

impacts would be the least 

due to the highest amount 

of route closures over 

other Alt (123 miles).

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

723 miles of routes would 

be closed. The route 

closures would reduce 

opportunities for air 

quality emissions and 

fugitive dust.

-In the AFNM, Impacts 

are expected to be similar 

to Alt B, except that more 

net route miles would be 

closed (52 miles). 

-Impacts in the Bradshaw 

Harquahala Planning 

Area similar to Alt B. 

4.9.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics 

No impacts expected. -56,040 acres would be 

allocated to the 

management of 

wilderness characteristics, 

which would limit or 

restrict vehicle use. This 

could intensity vehicle 

travel into remaining 

areas resulting in reduced 

localized air quality 

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt B, 

except that more area 

would be allocated to the 

management of 

wilderness characteristics 

(107,843 acres).

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt C, except 

that more area would be 

allocated to the 

management of 

wilderness characteristics 

(140,232 acres).

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt D except 

that more area would be 

allocated to the 

management of 

wilderness characteristics 

(88,179 acres). 
339

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

impacts in newly 

restricted sites and 

increased impacts in other 

areas.

4.10 Impacts on Water Resources

4.10.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

-Perry Mesa ACEC is 

likely to continue to 

experience minor 

degradation of water 

quality.

-Eligible WSR segment 

would continue to be 

managed for 

nonimpairment to WSR 

values.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

management of 

wilderness areas would 

improve hydrologic

function. 

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt 

A.

-In BradshawHarquahala, impacts in 

wilderness areas would be 

the same as for Alt A. In 

addition, withdrawal of 

Tule Creek from mineral 

development would 

eliminate disturbance to 

streambanks, soils, and 

ground cover.

-Designating 4 ACECs in 

the AFNM would close 

the areas to 

grazing/vehicles. This 

would encourage 

revegetation of disturbed 

areas/would improve 

hydrologic function. 

-In the BradshawHarquahala designation 

of six ACECs would have 

effects similar to those 

described above. 

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to those 

described for Alt A.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts would be similar 

to Alt C, but Alt D would 

close more areas to 

mineral entry.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

are expected to be similar 

to Alt A.

-In BradshawHarquahala, management 

prescriptions for four 

ACECs would result in 

impacts similar to Alt C.

4.10.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-Water quality could be 

affected by construction, 

maintenance of facilities 

authorized under right-ofway. Mitigation for water 

impacts would be 

essentially the same as for 

soils impacts.

-Impacts from land 

disposal of 54,370 acres 

include the potential loss 

of vegetation from 

development/possible 

increased erosion and 

sediment yield.

-In the AFNM, narrowing 

Black Canyon utility 

corridor could reduce 

options for locating 

towers or other facilities, 

which could result in 

slightly higher than 

normal impacts.

-Impacts of disposal of 

58,400 acres of public 

land similar to those 

described for Alt A.

-Water quality could be 

affected by construction, 

maintenance of facilities 

-Impacts of rights-of-way 

are similar to Alt A.

Eliminating the Black 

Canyon utility corridor 

would prohibit more 

utility right-of-way 

allocations.

-The impacts of disposing 

of 49,100 acres of BLMmanaged lands would be 

similar to Alt B. 

-Utility corridors and 

communication sites 

would have impacts 

similar to Alt B.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be the same Alt C.

-The impacts on water 

resources from acquiring 

private or State lands 

would be similar to those 

described for Alt B.

-Utility corridors and 

communication sites 

would have impacts 

similar to Alt B.

Impacts similar to Alt B.
340

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

-Acquiring larger blocks 

of BLM-managed land

could improve vegetation 

conditions/reduce stream 

sedimentation. 

authorized under right-ofway. Mitigation for water

impacts would be 

essentially the same as for 

soils impacts.

4.10.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Management actions 

designed to improve soil 

conditions would have the 

affect of improving water 

quality.

Alt B would provide 

more protection for water 

resources than Alt A. 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

but more protection of 

water resources. 

Would provide the most 

protection of water 

resources.

Impacts similar to Alt C.

4.10.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

-Designating the Agua 

Fria River riparian 

corridor would improve 

functional condition of 

the riparian zone.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts are expected 

from acquiring water 

rights to maintain or 

enhance spring/riparian 

habitats.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.10.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.10.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.10.7 From Recreation 

Management

-Areas disturbed by 

concentrated recreation 

use would continue to 

contribute to stream 

sediments and turbidity.

-Cross-country OHV use 

-In Front Country and 

Passage RMZs in the 

AFNM, OHV use would 

degrade water resources. 

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except the Front Country

RMZ would be reduced 

and the Passage RMZ 

would be reduced.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt C,

except the Front Country 

RMZ would be reduced 

and the Passage RMZ 

would be increased.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

similar to Alt C and D.

Riparian and upland 

vegetation would benefit 

from decreased access, 

resulting in improved 
341

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

could increase soil 

erosion, sediment yield, 

damage to banks of 

drainages, and sediment 

deposition.

-In BradshawHarquahala, impacts are 

expected from the 

increased water use by 

visitors and the 

proliferation of unplanned 

and unmanaged 

recreational trails and 

facilities.

allocating eight SRMAs 

and two areas to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

for management of 

recreation use could 

reduce soil erosion and 

sediment yield into 

drainages.

-Impacts under Alt C are 

expected to be similar to 

those described for Alt B, 

but to a lesser degree.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts are expected to be 

similar to those described 

for Alt C, but to a lesser 

degree.

functional condition of 

riparian zones.

-Impacts In BradshawHarquahala are expected 

to be similar to those 

described for Alt C.

4.10.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. Implementation of VRM 

standards could reduce 

the disturbance of new 

projects, reducing 

sediment loading and 

improving water quality.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.10.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-Impacts would include 

trampling and reduced 

vegetation, resulting in 

increased soil erosion and 

reduced streambank 

stability in riparian areas. 

-In BradshawHarquahala 

implementation of the 

Land Health Standards 

and the Guidelines for 

Rangeland Health would 

result in overall water 

quality improvements.

-Impacts are expected to 

would be similar to Alt A, 

except limiting grazing in 

riparian areas to the 

winter season would 

reduce bank instability 

and increase riparian 

vegetation cover, slightly 

reducing grazing impacts 

to water resources.

-Impacts are expected to 

would be similar to those 

describe for Alt A, except 

the prohibition of grazing 

in riparian areas would 

result in more rapid bank 

and vegetation recovery, 

further increasing riparian 

vegetation cover and bank 

stability, reducing

grazing impacts to water 

resources.

-Alt D would cause the 

greatest improvement for 

water resources and 

riparian zone vegetation.

Impacts similar to Alt B.
342

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.10.10 From Minerals 

Management

-No impacts are expected 

impact in the AFNM.

-Mining is expected to 

somewhat degrade water 

quality through increased 

sedimentation.

-Extraction of saleable 

mineral from flood plains 

could impair stream 

hydrologic function.

-No impacts are impacts 

expected in the AFNM.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Impacts would be similar 

to those discussed in Alt 

A.

-No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts would be 

substantially lower than 

Alt B because more land 

would be removed from 

mineral development.

-No impacts are impacts 

expected in the AFNM.

-Impacts In BradshawHarquahala would be 

lowest under this Alt since 

the most amount of land 

would be removed from 

mineral development.

-No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM. 

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts would be similar 

to Alt A, except that 

riparian areas in the Black 

Canyon corridor would be 

closed to mineral material 

disposal.

4.10.11 From Fire 

Management

-Prescribed fire would 

temporarily result in 

increased surface water 

turbidity and 

sedimentation.

Vegetative composition 

would improve in the 

long-term.

-Full suppression of 

wildfires could lower 

infiltration, increase 

runoff, increase erosion, 

and increase 

sedimentation.

-Use of heavy equipment 

and construction could 

increase soil loss and 

turbidity and 

sedimentation of 

waterways.

Fire use would have 

impacts similar to Alt A. 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.10.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

-No impacts are expected 

to AFNM. In BradshawHarquahala, maintaining 

AMLs in the Lake 

Pleasant HMA and 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.
343

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

removing burros in the 

Harquahala HA, would 

allow heavily used areas 

to recover/minimize 

impacts to water quality/ 

hydrologic function.

4.10.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

-Unplanned and 

unmanaged routes could 

continue to degrade 

stream bank stability and 

water resources.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

unlimited cross-country 

OHV use on the public 

lands west of Highway 93 

could increase soil 

erosion, sediment yield, 

damage to banks of 

drainages, and sediment 

deposition.

-In the AFNM OHV use 

could continue to degrade 

water resources.

-Closing routes would 

reduce impacts.

-Riparian and upland 

vegetation would benefit 

from decreased access, 

resulting in improved 

functional condition of 

riparian zones.

-In BradshawHarquahala, maintaining 

a diverse network of 

motorized vehicle routes 

would harden some areas.

Impacts are expected to 

be similar to those 

described for Alt B, but to 

a lesser degree due to an 

increase in closed miles 

of motorized routes.

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to those 

described for Alt C, but to 

a significantly lesser 

degree due to a greater net 

closure of motorized 

travel routes.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt C and D.

-Impacts in BradshawHarquahala are expected 

to be similar to those 

described for Alt C.

4.10.14 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

No impacts are expected -In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In BradshawHarquahala, 56,040 acres 

would be allocated for the 

management of 

wilderness 

characteristics.

-This could reduce soil 

erosion and sediment 

yield into drainages.

-Impacts are expected to 

would be similar to Alt B,

except that a larger area 

would be allocated 

for management of 

wilderness characteristics 

(107,843 acres).

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt B

except that 140,235 acres 

would be allocated for 

management of 

wilderness 

characteristics.

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt B except 

that 88,179 acres would 

be allocated for 

management of 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.11 Impacts on Biological Resources
344

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.11.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

-Managing WSR suitable

segments would reduce 

vehicle impacts to 

wildlife and habitat; 

reduce stream bank 

erosion, water quality 

degradation, and 

disturbance to riparian 

vegetation.

-Within BradshawHarquahala, vehicles on 

the Harquahala Mountain 

Summit Scenic Road 

Back Country Byway 

would occasionally 

disturb bighorn sheep and 

kill desert tortoise.

-Management of 

designated Wilderness 

protects vegetation and 

wildlife habitat through 

prohibition of OHV use.

-In the AFNM, 

management of WSR 

segments would have 

impacts similar to Alt A.

-Within BradshawHarquahala, Tule Creek 

ACEC would improve 

Gila topminnow and 

riparian habitat, as well as 

desert tortoise habitat. 

-Increased recreational 

use of the Constellation 

Road Back Country 

Byway would increase 

wildlife disturbance.

-Making Bloody Basin 

Road into a Back Country 

Byway could increase 

wildlife deaths from 

vehicle impacts, as well 

as impede pronghorn 

movement and breeding.

-In the AFNM, ACECs 

would have no new 

impacts to wildlife.

-In BradshawHarquahala, management 

of seven ACECs would 

increase bighorn sheep 

forage; protect unique 

vegetation communities; 

reduce habitat 

fragmentation; protect 

spring sources, riparian 

areas, high value desert 

tortoise habitat; and 

important raptor nesting 

sites.

-The designation of these 

10 ACECs would add 

additional protection to 

desert tortoise habitat as 

well as emphasize 

protection of 10.4 miles 

of riparian habitat.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt C.

-Within the BradshawHarquahala, the eight 

ACECs would have 

impacts similar to those 

described in Alt C, but 

over a larger area.

-The designation of these 

nine ACECs would add 

additional protection to 

significantly more desert 

tortoise habitat than Alt C 

as well as emphasize 

protection of 49.5 miles of 

riparian habitat.

-In the AFNM, impacts of 

designating Bloody Basin 

Road as a back country 

byway would be similar

to Alt B.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, management 

of four ACECs would be 

similar to Alt C.

-Management of 

designated Wilderness 

impacts similar to Alt A.

-Designation of 4 

ACECs would add 

additional protection to 

desert tortoise habitat, as 

well as emphasize 

protection of 1.7 miles of 

riparian habitat.

4.11.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-In the AFNM, existing 

utility right-of-ways 

could temporarily disturb 

vegetation for wildlife 

habitat, and provide sites 

for invasive species 

encroachment.

-In BradshawHarquahala, acquisition 

of lands to consolidate 

BLM management would 

improve wildlife habitats.

-Increased corridors, 

along with more 

-In the AFNM, narrowing 

the utility corridor would 

reduce the likelihood of 

impacting wildlife 

habitats.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, disposal of 

58,400 acres would 

reduce wildlife habitat, 

including 10,709 acres of 

desert tortoise habitat.

-Acquisition of lands 

would help consolidate 

blocks of BLM land and 

-In the AFNM, 

eliminating the utility 

corridor would reduce the 

potential for the impacts 

described in Alt A.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts from 

acquisition would be 

similar to Alt B. Disposal 

of 49,100 acres of BLM 

land would also have 

similar impacts to Alt B.

-Transportation and 

utility corridors would 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt C

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 

building and maintaining 

facilities in transportation 

and utility corridors and at 

communication sites 

would have impacts 

similar to Alt A. 

-The Black Canyon would 

be expanded south. This 

may increase the 

possibility of having 

power line towers 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt B.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts from 

acquisition and disposal 

would be similar to Alt 

B.

-Impacts of utility and 

transportation corridors 

would be similar to Alt B 

and C as the Black 

Canyon Corridor would 

be widened.

-Impacts from acquiring 
345

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

communication sites, 

could lead to more habitat 

disturbance, prevent 

wildlife movement, result 

in loss of habitat, result in 

human presence and 

harassment, displace 

individual animals, and 

facilitate long-term 

human population 

growth. 

-Building and operating 

facilities in these 

corridors could create 

barriers to wildlife 

movement and disturb 

tortoise habitat.

add high value resources 

to those already being 

managed by BLM.

-The impacts of utility 

and transportation 

corridors would be the 

same as described in Alt 

A, except the Black 

Canyon Corridor would 

be widened 1 mile to the 

west. No impacts are 

expected within the life of 

the plan. 

have similar impacts as 

described for Alt A, 

except the Black Canyon 

Corridor would be 

widened 2 miles to the 

west.

impacting sensitive 

resources.

Impacts from acquiring 

private or state lands 

would be similar to those 

in Alt B.

private or state lands 

would be similar to those 

in Alt B.

4.11.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

-Plans to maintain or 

improve watershed 

conditions, soil cover, and 

water flows would 

maintain or improve 

riparian vegetation 

quality, species diversity, 

and water quality in select 

drainages.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.11.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

-In the AFNM, proposed 

landscape improvements 

would improve riparian 

habitats.

-Stocking native fish 

would increase their 

overall viability.

-Fence modifications 

would improve pronghorn 

movement.

-Implementation of the 

Land Health Standards 

would make progress 

toward achieving desired 

plant communities.

-Habitat needs of special 

status species would be a 

high priority.

-Reintroduction, 

transplanting, and 

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

-In the AFNM, 

management of the WHA 

for pronghorn would 

avoid or mitigate impacts 

to pronghorn and 

emphasize management 

of wildlife habitats. 

-Prescribed burns would 

-Impacts similar to Alt B 

except:

-In the AFNM, impacts of 

the Pronghorn WHA 

would be similar to Alt C, 

except fences would be 

removed, greatly reducing 

pronghorn habitat 

fragmentation.

-Impacts of management 

- Impacts similar to Alt B 

except:

-In the AFNM, impacts to 

pronghorn would be 

similar to Alt C, except 

seasonal use restrictions 

on SRPs would reduce 

disturbance to pronghorn.

-Impacts of management 

for WHAs would be 
346

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

-In the BradshawHarquahala, protection 

measures on specific 

stream reaches would 

improve wildlife habitat.

-Acquisition of water 

rights could reduce 

competition for water and 

ensure legal availability 

and maintenance of 

flows.

-Use of native species for 

restoration would 

reestablish native plant 

communities and improve 

wildlife habitat.

-Protection of significant 

cliffs for nesting raptors 

would improve nesting 

conditions.

-Protection of the bighorn 

lambing areas in the 

Harquahala Mountains 

would increase forage and 

reproductive success in 

sheep populations.

supplemental stocking of 

wildlife would contribute 

to conservation and 

recovery of T&E species.

-Desert tortoise 

management standards 

would protect tortoise

populations and habitat.

-DFC objectives would 

protect and conserve 

priority habitats and 

species.

-Wildlife water 

availability would ensure 

access.

-Distribution and 

abundance of some 

species would be 

enhanced. 

-Actions to protect 

springs and seeps would 

prevent overexploitation.

-Prohibiting domestic 

sheep and goat grazing 

near desert bighorn sheep 

habitat will reduce the 

likelihood of disease 

transmission.

-Exotic species 

management would 

emphasize the restoration 

and maintenance of native 

species.

improve pronghorn 

forage and reduce 

invasive species.

-The management of 

Belmont-Big Horn 

Mountains and the Date 

Creek Mountains WHAs 

would improve species 

distribution, maintain 

genetic diversity and 

ensure bighorn sheep are 

given priority 

consideration in future 

road improvements.

-The Upper Agua Fria 

River Basin WHA would 

reduce wildlife-vehicle 

conflicts and improve 

pronghorn and mule deer 

movement.

-The designation of 

the WHAs would add 

additional protection to 

desert tortoise habitat and 

14.7 miles of riparian 

habitat by emphasizing 

wildlife habitat 

management.

for the Date Creek WHA 

would be similar to those 

described in Alt C, except 

that it would further 

reduce habitat 

fragmentation and loss of 

tortoise habitat. 

-Impacts of management 

for the Upper Agua Fria 

River Basin WHA would 

be similar to those 

described for Alt C; 

except they would be 

applied to a larger area 

and removal of fences 

would facilitate big game 

movement.

-The designation of 

the WHAs would add 

additional protection to 

fewer habitats than in Alt 

C as well as 5 miles of 

riparian habitat by 

emphasizing wildlife 

habitat management.

similar to those described 

for Alt C.

-The designation of 

the WHAs would add 

additional protection to 

desert tortoise habitat, 

similar to Alt C as well 

as 14.7 miles of riparian 

habitat by emphasizing 

wildlife habitat 

management.

4.11.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

-Management actions for 

cultural resources that 

prohibit surface 

disturbance near known 

-In the AFNM, 

development of High 

public use at five sites 

could degrade biological 

-In the AFNM, impacts of 

one High public use areas 

would be similar to those 

described for Alt B, but to 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

from developing one

Moderate public use sites 

described would be 

-In the AFNM, impacts of 

High public use at two 

sites and Moderate public 

use at six sites would be 
347

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

archaeological sites 

would protect vegetation 

and wildlife habitat in 

those areas.

resources.

-Development of four 

Moderate public use areas 

would have fewer 

impacts. -No impact is 

expected from Low 

public use sites.--In 

Bradshaw-Harquahala, 

impacts from public use 

would depend on site 

location, size, and 

surrounding habitat.

-In desert tortoise habitat, 

the decision to accept no 

net loss of habitat would 

reduce impacts from site 

development.

a lesser degree.

-Impacts of developing 

eight Moderate public use 

sites would be similar to 

those described in Alt B, 

but on more sites.

-Overall, impacts are 

expected to be lower than 

in Alt B.

-Impacts in BradshawHarquahala are expected 

to be similar to Alt B, but 

in fewer locations.

similar to those described 

for Alt B, but at fewer 

sites.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts of 

public use development 

would be similar to those 

described in Alt B, but in 

fewer locations than Alt 

C.

similar to those described 

for Alt B.

-Within the BradshawHarquahala, impacts of 

public use development 

would be similar to those 

described for Alt B.

4.11.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.11.7 From Recreation 

Management

-In the AFNM, recreation 

uses would be allowed if 

they are consistent with 

the proclamation.

-In BradshawHarquahala, current levels 

of recreation management 

would inadequately 

protect biological 

resources. 

-Informal concentrated 

recreational use areas 

would continue to 

develop and grow causing 

increasing levels of 

habitat loss and 

-In the AFNM, Front 

Country and Passage 

zones could lead to some 

additional disturbances to 

wildlife habitats.

-Campgrounds could 

disturb pronghorn 

movement and fawning 

behavior.

-Designation of 12,700 

acres of Back Country, 

would result in less 

ground disturbance to 

vegetation and wildlife 

habitat.

-In the Bradshaw-

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except impacts of visitor 

use in Front Country 

would affect 42,000 acres 

and 700 acres of Passage 

RMZ.

-The Badger Springs 

campground could 

potentially affect 

pronghorn behavior and 

fawning success on Black 

Mesa.

-Impacts from Back 

Country would be similar 

to Alt B, but the zone 

-In the AFNM, impacts to 

biological resources 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except impacts in Front 

Country would affect only 

1,530 acres and 990 acres 

of Passage Zone.

-The Back Country would 

be expanded to include 

68,380 acres.

-Impacts from allocating a 

Passage zone would be 

similar to Alt B except 

that the zone would 

consist of 990 acres.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala,

-In the AFNM, Impacts 

are expected to be similar 

to Alt B, except impacts 

of visitor use in Front 

Country would affect 

11,900 acres and 1,350 

acres of Passage RMZ.

-Since Back Country 

would include 57,650

acres, the impacts to 

wildlife described in Alt 

B would be over a much 

larger area.

-Within the BradshawHarquahala, impacts from 

staging areas and route 
348

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

disturbance. 

-The location and use of 

these areas would 

continue to be unplanned 

and may conflict with 

sensitive biological 

resources, priority 

species, or priority 

habitats.

-Motorized and nonmotorized cross-country 

users can cause trailing 

and destruction of 

vegetation.

Harquahala, seasonally 

restricting motorized 

events in Category I and 

II desert tortoise habitat 

would reduce impacts to 

desert tortoises.

-Limiting designation of 

rock crawling sites would 

protect resources.

-In the Table Mesa, 

Hieroglyphic Mountains, 

and San Domingo 

SRMAs, development of 

OHV staging areas would 

destroy the vegetation and 

habitat in those sites.

-Impacts from crosscountry travel would be 

similar to Alt A.

would increase to 28,200

acres.

-Impacts from allocating 

a Passage zone would be 

similar to Alt B, except 

that the zone would 

occupy just 700 acres.

-Impacts of staging areas 

and route designation 

would be less than Alt B.

-Impacts from crosscountry travel would be 

similar to Alt A.

impacts from OHV 

staging areas and route 

designations would be 

reduced from Alt C.

-Shifting use in the 

Hieroglyphics SRMA 

from motorized to nonmotorized would reduce 

habitat fragmentation as 

well as disturbance and 

displacement of wildlife.

-Impacts from crosscountry travel would be 

similar to Alt A.

designations would be 

similar to those described 

for Alt C.

-Impacts from crosscountry travel would be 

similar to Alt A.

4.11.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

-Assigning VRM Class I 

or II could limit the 

design and location of 

some wildlife 

management 

developments. This 

could adversely affect 

wildlife populations. 

There are 96,820 acres of 

Class I.

-Impacts to would be 

similar to those under Alt 

A, except that the area in 

VRM Class I would be 

96,820 acres and VRM 

Class II would be 

allocated to 486,800

acres. 

-Impacts to would be 

similar to those under Alt 

B, except that the area in 

VRM Class I would 

increase to 109,570 acres 

and the area in VRM 

Class II would increase to 

502,610 acres.

-Impacts to would be 

similar to those under Alt 

B, except that the area in 

VRM Class I would 

decrease to 298,310 acres 

and the area in VRM 

Class II would decrease to 

340,880 acres.

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt B, 

except that the area in 

VRM Class I would 

increase to 116,132 acres 

and the area in VRM 

Class II would increase to 

454,868 acres.

4.11.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-Implementing the Land 

Health Standards would 

reduce soil erosion, 

restore functional 

conditions of riparian 

habitats, and reduce the 

presence of invasive 

-Impacts similar to Alt A.

-Applying the Special 

Ephemeral rule could 

result in the increase of 

native grass production, 

shrub and tree cover, and 

habitat complexity.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

-Impacts of closing 

riparian areas to grazing 

would occur quicker and 

could be more 

pronounced.

-The affects of removing 

all livestock from federal 

lands in both planning 

areas would be similar to 

those described for 

riparian and upland areas 

under Alt C. However, 

Impacts similar to Alt B.
349

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

species.

-Implementing would 

prioritize the habitat 

needs of special status 

species where wildlife 

and other land use 

conflict. 

-Implementing changes in 

grazing practices would 

increase vegetation 

density and cover.

-Fence modifications 

would improve big game 

movement.

-Development of water 

facilities for grazing may 

improve water 

availability for some 

species, while being 

mortally dangerous to 

others.

-Congregation of 

livestock in and around 

water developments can 

result in some habitat 

loss.

-Retirement of allotments 

could increase plant 

diversity and habitat 

complexity.

-In the AFNM, limiting 

riparian areas to winter 

use would increase the 

diversity and abundance 

of plant species and the 

complexity of the wildlife 

habitat.

-In BradshawHarquahala, 

implementing riparian 

management would have 

similar impacts to riparian 

habitats but more slowly 

and less consistently.

-Seasonal grazing closure 

in the Harquahala 

Mountains ONA ACEC 

during bighorn lambing 

season would increase 

forage abundance and 

availability to bighorn 

sheep during the critical 

lambing season, 

improving their health 

and potentially improving 

lamb fitness and survival.

-Prohibiting the 

development of facilities 

that would increase 

livestock use in Browns 

Canyon and the Inner 

Basin would eliminate 

concentrated livestock 

use from sensitive 

riparian and upland 

habitat areas.

Alt D would affect a much 

larger area.

-Eliminating all range 

improvements that serve 

no purpose in the absence 

of livestock grazing would 

remove many fences and 

corrals that hinder natural 

movement of pronghorn, 

mule deer, and bighorn 

sheep.

4.11.10 From Minerals 

Management

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In BradshawHarquahala, minerals 

actions would be 

evaluated on a case-bycase basis and impacts to 

biological resources 

would be mitigated and 

avoided to the extent 

allowable by regulation.

-Impacts within the 

AFNM would be similar 

to Alt A.

-In BradshawHarquahala, closing areas 

to mineral extraction 

would protect habitat 

from disturbance and 

protect the wildlife that 

depend on those areas.

-The riparian area in Tule 

-Impacts within the 

AFNM would be similar 

to Alt A.

-Impacts of closing areas 

to mineral extraction 

would be similar to those 

described in Alt B.

-Opening reconvened 

lands to mining could 

degrade desert tortoise 

habitats and habitats for 

-Impacts within the 

AFNM would be similar 

to Alt A.

-Impacts of closing areas 

to mineral would be 

similar to those described 

in Alt B.

-Impacts within the 

AFNM would be similar 

to Alt A.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts to 

reconveyed lands would 

be similar to those 

described for Alt C.

-Impacts in Tule Creek 
350

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

-Some residual loss of 

desert tortoise habitat is 

likely.

Creek would especially 

benefit.

-Opening reconveyed 

lands to mining could 

degrade riparian and areas 

and habitats for priority 

species.

priority species, but in 

this alternative, riparian 

habitats would be 

protected.

would be similar to Alt B. 

Impacts in other areas 

would be similar to Alt A.

4.11.11 From Fire 

Management

-In the AFNM, use of 

prescribed fire affects 

pronghorn habitats and 

helps control invasive 

species and restores the 

natural fire cycle.

-Full suppression of 

natural fire starts could 

interrupt the natural fire 

cycle required for natural 

succession, allowing 

establishment of invasive 

species, and a buildup of 

fuel loading.

-In BradshawHarquahala, full 

suppression of fires in fire 

adapted communities 

would have the same 

impact. Full suppression 

of fires in Sonoran 

desertscrub habitat would 

decrease mortality to 

species not adapted to 

fire.

-The impacts of 

prescribed fire use in fire 

adapted plant 

communities would be 

the same as Alt A.

-Treatments would reduce 

the population size of 

invasive species in fireadapted environments, 

reducing competition 

between invasive species 

and native vegetation.

-Allowing natural starts to 

burn when conditions are 

suitable would allow 

natural fire cycles to 

return, creating natural 

mosaics of vegetation age 

classes and successional 

stages, improving wildlife 

habitat and helping to 

control invasive species.

-Impacts of full 

suppression would be 

similar to Alt A.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.11.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

-No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM.

-In Harquahala HA, 

continued degradation of 

Impacts similar to Alt A. -Impacts in the AFNM 

and the Lake Pleasant 

area are the similar to Alt 

A.

Impacts similar to Alt C. Impacts similar to Alt C.
351

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

sensitive habitats and 

increased competition 

with wildlife for scarce 

resources.

-In Lake Pleasant HMA, 

Managing for AML 

would minimize 

competition with wildlife 

and livestock.

-In BradshawHarquahala, eliminating 

the burro population in 

the Harquahala HA would 

help sensitive habitats 

recover and reduce 

competition for forage, 

water, or other habitat. 

4.11.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

-In the AFNM, biological 

resources would benefit 

from prohibiting crosscountry OHV use, which 

would prevent the 

destruction of vegetation 

and priority wildlife 

habitats.

-In BradshawHarquahala, prohibiting 

cross-country OHV use 

would provide some 

protection for sensitive 

desert tortoise habitat. 

-Use of routes that 

degrade the value of 

sensitive riparian and 

tortoise habitat would 

likely continue and 

increase. 

-In the AFNM, 

Designating 134 miles of 

road as open and closing 

37 miles would reduce 

habitat fragmentation and 

human disturbance to 

priority habitats, 

including riparian and 

pronghorn habitats. 

-Closed roads would 

reclaim and restore 

habitat.

-In BradshawHarquahala, designating 

vehicle routes and closing 

undesignated routes and 

cross-country travel 

would benefit biological 

resources by reducing (1) 

habitat fragmentation, (2) 

vegetation destruction, 

and (3) human 

disturbance of wildlife.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except that 123 miles of 

roads would remain open, 

providing less habitat 

fragmentation.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except that 48 miles of

roads would remain open, 

fragmenting even less 

habitat than under Alt C.

-Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except that 52 miles of 

roads would be closed. 

Impacts would be more 

than in Alt C, but less 

than Alt D.

4.11.14 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

No impacts are expected. -Allocations to wilderness 

characteristics would 

recognize wildlife 

populations and habitat as 

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except that allocating 

107,843 acres to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

Impacts similar to Alt C, 

except 140,235 acres 

would be allocated to 

maintain wilderness 

Impacts similar to Alt C, 

except 88,179 acres 

would be allocated to 

maintain wilderness 
352

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

important aspects of 

naturalness and actively 

manage them. 

-Allocating 56,040 acres 

in the Harquahala 

Management Unit, would 

reduce disturbances to 

priority wildlife habitats.

-Closing lands allocated 

to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to mineral 

material disposal would 

reduce ground 

disturbance and impacts 

to vegetation and wildlife 

habitat.

in 3 management units

would further reduce 

disturbances to priority 

wildlife habitats.

characteristics. characteristics and these 

areas would not be closed 

to mineral material 

disposal making them 

subject to impacts 

associated with this 

activity.

.

4.12 Impacts on Cultural Resources

4.12.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

-Management of WSR 

non-impairment would 

continue to protect 

cultural resources.

-Management of 

designated Wilderness 

would preserve cultural 

resources in current 

condition.

-Impacts are similar to 

Alt A, except ACEC 

designation for Perry 

Mesa and Larry Canyon 

would be removed which 

would have little effect.

-Increased use from Back 

Country byways could 

increase vandalism, 

accelerated erosion at 

roadside sites, and create 

a need for more 

maintenance to preserve 

historic features off of 

Constellation Road. 

-Designating Tule Creek 

would limit surface 

disturbances that could 

damage archaeological 

-Proposed ACEC 

designations would 

include restrictions on 

transportation routes, 

rights-of-way, livestock 

grazing, and minerals 

actions. Such restrictions 

could help protect cultural 

resources by limiting 

public access and grounddisturbing activities.

-Impacts of Back Country 

Byways would be similar 

to Alt B.

-No back country byways 

are proposed; therefore, 

no impacts to cultural 

resources are expected.

-ACEC designations 

would have similar 

impacts to Alt C.

-Designating more 

ACECs would further 

restrict and uses, thereby 

better protecting cultural 

resources.

-Impacts are similar to 

Alt B except ACEC 

protection would be more 

like Alt C, extending to 

89,970 acres.

-Black Mesa would be 

recommended for 

recognition in the 

National Register of 

Historic Places.

-No back country byways 

are proposed; therefore, 

no impacts to cultural 

resources are expected.
353

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

features.

4.12.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-Land acquisitions would 

acquire valuable cultural 

resources and consolidate 

important areas. This 

would increase protection 

of many sites and assure 

their availability for 

future scientific or public 

uses.

-Installation of utilities 

within the Black Canyon 

Corridor could reduce the 

physical integrity and 

visual setting of the 

AFNM‘s natural and 

cultural landscape.

-Disposal of lands in the 

Upper Agua Fria River 

Basin could remove 

significant cultural 

resources from Federal 

protection.

-Acquisitions impacts 

similar to Alt A.

-Narrowing the Black 

Canyon Corridor and 

restrictions on utility 

development should help 

maintain integrity of 

cultural and natural 

landscapes.

-Acquiring or disposing 

of lands in BradshawHarquahala might add or 

remove significant 

cultural resources from 

federal protection. 

Impacts would be 

assessed on a case-bycase basis.

-Widening the Black 

Canyon Corridor could 

put more sites at risk of 

disturbance. Installation 

of above-ground facilities 

would detract from the 

visual setting.

Establishing corridors 

protects sites outside of 

corridors.

-Acquisitions impacts 

similar to Alt A

-Eliminating the Black 

Canyon utility corridor 

would reduce the 

likelihood that cultural 

resources would be 

affected by ground 

disturbance or visual 

intrusions from future 

utility development.

-In BradshawHarquahala, disposal of 

600 acres would be 

unlikely to affect 

significant cultural 

resources. Disposal of 

49,100 acres could 

transfer significant 

cultural resources out of 

federal protection.

-Widening the Black 

Canyon Corridor two 

miles west would have 

similar impacts to Alt B, 

but would allow 

additional flexibility.

-In the AFNM, 

eliminating the Black 

Canyon utility corridor 

would have impacts 

similar Alt C.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, acquiring 

state and federal lands 

would likely increase the 

level of protection for 

cultural resources on those 

lands, much as would Alt 

C.

-In the AFNM, Impacts 

are expected to be similar 

to Alt C.

-In BradshawHarquahala, Impacts are 

expected to be similar to 

those described in Alt B 

except only 38,755 acres 

are available for disposal 

and the Black Canyon 

Utility corridor has been 

adjusted to exclude 

known sensitive cultural 

resources.

-Project related impacts 

would be mitigated.

4.12.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Actions to improve soil 

and vegetation stability 

would help protect 

cultural resources from 

eroding.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.12.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

-In the AFNM, 

modification of existing 

-Actions designed to 

protect wildlife habitats 

Limiting routes in 

pronghorn corridors could 

Impacts similar to Alt C. Impacts similar to Alt C.
354

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

fences would have no 

affect, but new fences 

could disturb cultural 

resources and degrade the 

visual setting.

-Restricting public access 

to sensitive wildlife 

habitats would have the 

spin off benefit of also 

reducing disturbance and 

vandalism to cultural 

sites.

generally also protect 

cultural resources.

Building wildlife 

management facilities, 

such as water 

developments, could 

disturb cultural 

resources. Specific 

surveys and mitigation 

would be needed that is 

specific to any proposal.

-Travel limitations could 

restrict access to cultural 

sites for research or 

cultural heritage tourism.

protect sites but limit 

opportunities for research, 

monitoring, and 

interpretation.

-In the AFNM, fence 

modifications would have 

impacts similar to Alt A.

-In BradshawHarquahala, limiting 

routes in sensitive 

habitats could restrict 

access that leads to 

damage.

4.12.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

-In the AFNM, 

restrictions to surface 

disturbance would help 

protect cultural resources, 

but may limit research 

opportunities.

-Protective actions would 

minimize disturbance to 

cultural resources.

Mitigation devised under 

Section 106 of the 

National Historic 

Preservation Act would 

help ensure protection of 

National Historic Register 

eligible sites.

-Proactive management 

helps protect sites from 

disturbance. Inventories 

and consultation with 

tribes would help identify 

sites and needs for future 

uses or protective 

measures that may be 

important.

-Implementation of 

measures could stop, 

limit, or repair damage 

from vandalism, erosion 

and other disturbances, or 

could improve success in 

prosecution.

-Scientific research 

methods might disturb 

sites.

-Development of sites for 

public use could improve 

understanding, reducing 

-Impacts to cultural 

resources would be 

similar to Alt B, except:

-In the AFNM, one site 

would be developed for 

High public use and eight 

sites would be allocated 

to a less intensive 

Moderate.

-Impacts of public use 

development would be 

similar to Alt B, but in 

fewer areas and less 

intensive for the 

Moderate developed 

sites.

-Overall there is less 

potential for damage to 

cultural resources and 

reduced opportunity for 

public education and 

enjoyment of cultural 

-In the AFNM, no sites 

would be developed to 

High public use and one 

site would be developed 

to Moderate public use.

-This alternative would 

subject the fewest sites to 

potential damage, but also 

develop the fewest sites 

for public education and 

enjoyment.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 

sites would be allocated to 

public use in two 

SCRMAs.

-This alternative subjects 

the fewest sites to 

potential damage from 

visitation, but also 

provides the least 

opportunities for public 

education, recreation, and 

-Impacts to cultural 

resources would be 

similar to Alt B, except:

-Two sites would be 

allocated to High public 

use development and six 

sites would be allocated 

to Moderate.

-Impacts would be similar 

to Alt B, but slightly less.

-At least 60,000 acres in 

the AFNM would be 

excluded from public use 

allocations. In these 

remote areas, visitors 

could encounter and 

observe archaeological 

sites under conditions of 

solitude in pristine 

settings.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, sites in six 
355

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

behaviors that put cultural 

sites at risk. Attracting 

people to particular sites 

can cause disturbance.

Cultural Heritage 

Tourism can provide an 

economic benefit to 

nearby communities.

-Development of four 

sites to High public use 

within the AFNM would 

potentially result in 

increased disturbance, but 

would provide the 

greatest opportunity for 

interpretation, public 

education and enjoyment.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, sites would 

have the largest potential 

for damage as well as 

having the greatest 

opportunity for 

interpretation, public 

education and enjoyment.

sites than in Alt B.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, sites in four 

cultural priority areas 

would be developed for 

public use, reducing the 

potential for damage, but 

also reducing the 

opportunities for public 

education and enjoyment 

of cultural sites.

-Alt C entails a moderate 

potential for damage to 

sites from public use, as 

well as a moderate 

potential benefit in public 

education and the 

recreational opportunities 

and economic returns of 

cultural heritage tourism.

economic return from 

cultural heritage tourism.

cultural priority areas 

would be developed for 

public use, reducing the 

potential for damage to 

cultural sites from Alt B, 

but also reducing the 

opportunities for public 

education and enjoyment 

of cultural sites.

4.12.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.12.7 From Recreation 

Management

-In the AFNM, limiting 

motorized vehicle use 

would help protect sites. 

-In BradshawHarquahala, continued 

protection and 

interpretation of the 

Harquahala Peak 

-Prohibiting geocaches on 

sites would reduce 

vandalism and 

disturbance.

-Restricting camping and 

campfires near sites could 

reduce damage.

-For SRPs, limiting group 

-This alternative would 

allocate a smaller 

proportion of the AFNM 

to the Front Country 

RMZ than Alt B with an 

expected reduction in 

levels of recreational 

facilities and visitation.

-This alternative would 

create the lowest level of 

visitation and the least

risk of damage to cultural 

resources. Access 

restrictions would limit 

the regular monitoring of 

sites in remote areas, 

-In the AFNM, the 

relatively large area 

allocated to the Back 

Country zone, along with 

a number of route 

closures, would 

contribute to protecting 

cultural resources, while 
356

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

Observatory would 

enhance opportunities for 

public education and 

cultural heritage tourism.

-The potential for damage 

could continue as public 

awareness and subsequent 

casual use increases.

-Cross-country nonmotorized recreation use 

can cause trailing which 

can degrade cultural 

features. These impacts 

are relatively minor.

size would help preserve 

integrity of sites and 

reduce potential 

disturbance.

-Public outreach and 

education programs could 

make the public more 

aware of cultural values 

and may discourage 

damaging behaviors.

-Vehicle route 

designations can reduce 

damage. Routes that 

increase the risk of 

damaging particular sites 

can be closed.

-This alternative would 

allow the highest amount 

of visitation and access 

by motorized vehicles and 

would have the greatest 

potential for site 

disturbance along with 

the greatest opportunity 

for interpretation and 

education.

-Non-motorized 

recreation impacts similar 

to Alt A.

Impacts to archaeological 

sites are expected to be 

less extensive in areas 

allocated to the Back 

Country zone. Site 

visitation and educational 

opportunities from 

interpretive development 

of archaeological sites 

would also decline.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, reductions in 

travel routes are expected 

to contribute to lower 

levels of damage.

-Opportunities for 

cultural heritage tourism 

partnerships would 

slightly decrease.

-Non-motorized 

recreation impacts similar 

to Alt A.

leaving some sites 

vulnerable to vandalism.

Reduced access would 

reduce opportunities for 

interpretation and public 

education, as well as 

reduced opportunities for 

scientific research.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 

more emphasis on nonmotorized recreation, 

issuance of fewer SRPs, 

and more miles of closed 

routes would reduce the 

potential of 

damage. Opportunities for 

public education, 

community partnerships, 

and revenues from 

cultural heritage tourism 

would be reduced.

-Non-motorized recreation 

impacts similar to Alt A.

still allowing for 

unobtrusive interpretive 

uses and access for 

scientific research and 

monitoring.

-In BradshawHarquahala, there would 

be an intermediate level 

of recreational facilities 

and route closures.

Impacts would likely be 

similar to Alt C.

Recreational activities 

would continue to 

threaten cultural 

resources but community 

partnerships would be 

developed. This would 

enhance the long-term 

effectiveness of public 

education, stewardship, 

and cultural resource 

protection by enlisting 

citizens as partners in 

these efforts.

-Non-motorized 

recreation impacts similar 

to Alt A.

4.12.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

A lack of VRM Class 

objectives throughout the 

planning area could lead 

to a steady degradation of 

visual landscapes that 

contribute to prehistoric 

and historic sites.

Establishing VRM classes 

through RMP decisions, 

along with actions that 

minimize or mitigate 

visual intrusions, would 

protect the integrity of 

cultural resources.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
357

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.12.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Livestock grazing can 

cause physical damage to 

sites from rubbing or 

walking on them.

-Sites could be damaged 

by soil erosion resulting 

from the loss of 

stabilizing vegetation or 

the trampling of 

streambanks. Damage is 

expected to be greatest at 

sites where livestock tend 

to concentrate. 

-Installing and 

maintaining livestock 

management facilities 

could damage the 

physical or visual 

integrity of cultural sites.

-Implementing the Land 

Health Standards and 

Guidelines for Rangeland 

Health would reduce soil 

erosion impacts to 

cultural sites.

Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt A, 

except that grazing 

riparian areas in winter 

only would reduce 

impacts.

-Grazing in the Front 

Country may result in 

conflict between livestock 

and visitors to sites 

developed for public 

use. 

-Projects for installing 

and maintaining livestock 

management would avoid 

or mitigate impacts to 

physical or visual 

integrity.

In both planning areas 

reductions in upland 

grazing and the removal 

of livestock from riparian 

habitats would reduce 

damage to cultural 

resources in nearby 

areas. Other impacts 

similar to Alt B.

Removing grazing from 

public lands would 

eliminate livestock 

impacts to cultural 

resources and enhance 

primitive experiences for 

visitors.

Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.12.10 From Minerals 

Management

Surface disturbance from 

mining can disturb or 

destroy cultural sites.

-Two active mining 

claims occur within the 

AFNM that may continue 

to be mined for casual 

use.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, archeological 

surveys are conducted to 

evaluate if cultural 

In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt A.

In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts are 

expected to be similar to 

Alt A, except more areas 

would be closed to, or 

contain restrictions to 

mining, increasing 

protection of cultural 

resources.

In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt A.

In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

more areas would be 

closed to, or contain 

restrictions to mining, 

increasing protection of 

cultural resources.

In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt A.

In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt C, except 

even more areas would be 

closed to, or contain 

restrictions to mining, 

further increasing 

protection of cultural 

resources.

In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt A.

In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

mining closures in Tule 

Creek ACEC and in 

riparian areas within the 

reconveyed lands would 

be closed to mineral 

materials disposal, 
358

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

resources might be 

affected by proposed 

mining. However, casual 

use mining does not 

require a mining plan and 

impacts to cultural 

resources may occur.

protecting cultural sites in 

these areas.

4.12.11 From Fire 

Management

Fires (wild or prescribed) 

can damage cultural sites, 

especially those with 

flammable components.

Fires could temporarily 

affect visual settings. 

Methods to fight fire or 

prepare a site for 

prescribed burning can 

disturb cultural sites and 

cause surface 

disturbances. Prescribed 

fire planning includes 

input from an 

archeologist to avoid or 

minimize potential 

damage. Wildfires that 

may threaten cultural sites 

have archeologist input 

on tactics to minimize the 

potential for resource

damage. 

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except archeological 

surveys would help locate 

sensitive resources that 

may require special 

attention. MIST would 

be used to reduce 

potential damage.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.12.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.12.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

-Continued restrictions 

that limit the use of 

motorized vehicles to 

designated routes in the 

AFNM would help 

-Selected routes that lead 

directly to sites that have 

been damaged or are 

threatened by vandalism 

would be closed. 

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except Alt C would 

allocate fewer 

transportation routes.

-More limited public 

-Alt D would close the 

largest number of 

transportation routes in 

both planning areas. In the 

AFNM, only limited 

-Impacts from Travel 

Management would be 

similar to Alt C for The 

AFNM. The number of 

route closures would 
359

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

protect cultural resources.

-Continued use of 

existing roads leading to 

large archaeological sites 

might increase the 

potential for vandalism 

and damage.

-Limiting vehicle traffic 

on fragile sites would 

help protect the surface 

and could deter illegal 

digging and collecting 

activities.

-Alt B would allow for a 

more extensive network 

of transportation routes, 

which could increase the 

potential for damage. A 

more extensive network 

would facilitate access to 

a larger number of sites, 

increasing vulnerability to 

vandalism and theft. 

Conversely, increased 

access would also allow 

for more interpretation, 

which could enhance 

understanding and 

stewardship of cultural 

resources. 

access would be expected 

to reduce the impacts to 

archaeological sites from 

vehicle and visitor traffic 

in both planning areas.

motorized use would be 

allowed in the extensive 

Back Country

RMZ. While this would 

reduce the levels of 

damage, fewer areas 

would be available for site 

visitation and cultural 

heritage tourism projects.

-Restricted access would 

also limit the regular 

monitoring of 

archaeological sites in 

remote areas.

-Restrictions on access for 

permitted scientific 

studies would limit the 

scientific use of sites and 

the gathering of 

information useful for 

research and resource 

management.

contribute to protecting 

cultural resources, while 

still allowing for 

unobtrusive interpretive 

uses and access for 

scientific research and 

monitoring.

-In BradshawHarquahala, there would 

be an intermediate level 

of route closures. Impacts 

to cultural resources 

would likely be similar to 

those described for Alt C.

4.12.14 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

No impacts are expected. Management of 

wilderness characteristics 

would preserve the visual 

integrity and natural 

settings of archaeological 

sites and cultural 

landscapes.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.13 Impacts on Paleontological Resources

4.13.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

Impacts expected to be 

minimal. Where 

resources are discovered, 

management for reduced 

public use would 

Impacts similar to Alt A 

except in the BradshawHarquahala, fencing Tule 

Creek ACEC would 

prevent damage and 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
360

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

diminish potential 

impacts.

special designations 

would protect more areas 

than Alt A.

4.13.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Impacts minimal. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.13.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Management to improve 

soil conditions in the 

AFNM could preserve 

potential sites. No 

impacts are expected in 

the BradshawHarquahala.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.13.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.13.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Actions to protect cultural 

resources may preserve 

potential paleontological 

sites.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.13.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.13.7 From Recreation 

Management

Impacts are expected to 

be inadvertent and 

minimal. Damage may 

occur from concentrated 

recreation use.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except reduction of routes 

may help preserve 

potential sites.

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

but more routes would be 

closed and more area 

allocated to Back Country 

RMZ.

Impacts similar to Alt C, 

except more routes would 

be closed and more area 

allocated to Back Country 

RMZ.

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except more routes would 

be closed and more area 

allocated to Back Country 

RMZ. 

4.13.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.13.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Continued grazing may 

reduce vegetation and 

increase erosion.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Elimination of grazing 

could help preserve 

potential sites.

Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.13.10 From Minerals No impacts are expected. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.
361

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

Management Should sites be found, 

potential damage would 

be mitigated.

4.13.11 From Fire 

Management

Prescribed burning 

equipment may affect 

potential sites.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.13.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.13.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM. 

Unrestricted vehicle use 

in B-H may damage sites.

OHV use in the AFNM 

could damage potential 

sites.

Restricted vehicle use in 

B-H may preserve sites.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.13.14 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

No impacts are expected. Management may 

preserve sites by 

restricting uses.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.14 Impacts on Recreation

4.14.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

-Recreation opportunities 

in WSR corridors and 

wilderness areas would be 

retained. 

-Growing numbers of 

non-motorized users 

could impair solitude and 

cause trailing and 

campsite use impacts in 

wilderness areas.

-Bloody Basin Road back 

country byway could 

increase traffic and 

interaction among 

visitors. -Primitive 

recreational experiences 

WSR corridor could be 

diminished.

-Interpretive elements of 

byway would increase 

visitor awareness, 

appreciation, and 

enjoyment.

-Constellation Mine Road 

byway impacts similar to 

Bloody Basin Road

-Impacts of byways 

similar to Alt B.

-ACEC designation 

would have little impact n 

the AFNM.

-Tule Creek ACEC would 

have impacts similar to 

Alt B.

-ACECs in the BradshawHarquahala would 

improve opportunities for 

primitive recreation 

experiences.

-Impacts to wilderness 

areas would be similar to 

Alt B.

-No impacts from byways.

-Impacts from ACECs 

similar Alt C but cover 

more area.

-Impacts to wilderness 

areas due to group size 

and permit restrictions 

would be similar to Alt B.

-No impacts from 

byways.

-Tule Creek ACEC would 

have impacts similar to 

Alt B.

- Impacts from ACECs 

similar Alt C.

-Opportunities for nonmotorized recreation 

maintained in wilderness 

areas.

-Impacts to wilderness 

areas due to group size 

and permit restrictions 

would be similar to Alt B.
362

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

-Conflicts between byway 

users and large OHV 

groups could diminish 

scenic drive experience.

-Tule Creek ACEC would 

reduce opportunities for 

vehicular recreation.

-Eliminating grazing 

would retain a more 

natural setting and reduce 

conflicts with livestock.

-Interpretive elements 

would increase

appreciation of the natural 

and cultural resources.

-In wilderness areas, 

establishing criteria to 

manage larger groups 

would protect wilderness 

values.

4.14.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-Disposal of lands would 

reduce or eliminate 

recreation opportunities 

in those areas. OHV use 

in Skull Valley and Table 

Mesa would relocate 

elsewhere. 

-In the Upper Agua Fria 

River Basin, some 

recreation connectivity 

between local 

communities and the 

Prescott National Forest 

would be lost.

-Corridors are not 

expected to impact 

-Acquiring non-Federal

lands that enhance 

AFNM‘s values would 

improve recreation 

opportunities by 

improving access.

-Lands in the Table Mesa 

area would be retained 

and recreation on those 

lands could continue.

-Acquiring lands could 

enhance opportunities for 

recreation by increasing 

connectivity of public 

lands.

Impacts similar to Alt A. -In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt C. 

No lands would be 

disposed, and no impacts 

are expected. Impacts 

from corridors would be 

similar to Alt A.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B.

-No impacts are expected 

to result from disposing 

of lands because parcels 

are small, isolated, or 

generally an urban area.

-Because recreation on 

these parcels is generally 

minimal, relocating the 

activities to other BLMmanaged lands is not 

expected to have great 

impacts.

-Impacts from other lands 

actions would be similar 
363

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

recreation until future 

projects are proposed. 

Impacts of utility 

proposals would be 

analyzed at the time of 

application.

to Alt B.

4.14.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

In the AFNM, 

maintaining water quality 

would enhance wildlife 

viewing opportunities and 

water related recreation.

Managing air quality 

could result in restrictions 

to recreation activities 

that have the potential to 

exceed standards. Any 

recreation related 

facilities would need to 

be designed to address 

emissions.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.14.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

-In the AFNM, fence 

modifications and 

development of additional 

wildlife waters could 

enhance wildlife viewing 

opportunities.

-Protection of sensitive 

habitat could reduce 

motorized recreation 

opportunities, but 

improved habitat could 

improve wildlife viewing 

opportunities.

-Development of wildlife 

waters and protection of 

Impacts in the AFNM 

would be similar to Alt A. 

-Designation of 

Harquahala Mountains 

Wildlife Habitat Area 

(WHA) would Protect 

sensitive wildlife habitat 

but route closures would 

diminish opportunities for 

motorized recreation.

-Management for desert 

tortoise could limit 

development of new 

motorized vehicle routes.

-Seasonal limitations on 

-Limitation of routes in 

pronghorn movement 

corridors could reduce 

connectivity of motorized 

routes within the AFNM.

-Prohibiting recreational 

sites in pronghorn 

corridors could preclude 

facilities that enhance the 

recreation experience of 

some users. 

-Impacts of habitat 

enhancement projects 

similar to Alt B.

-Management of WHA 

- AFNM impacts similar 

to Alt C.

-Removal of all fences 

would maintain route 

connectivity and enhance 

the natural appearance of 

the landscape. 

-Wildlife viewing would 

be enhanced.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B. 

-Impacts from WHA 

management similar to Alt 

C.

-AFNM impacts similar 

to Alt C.

-Prohibiting new fences 

in specified WHA would 

help maintain the current 

connectivity of the route 

network.

-Impacts from desert 

tortoise management 

similar to Alt B.

-Impacts from WHA 

management similar to 

Alt C.
364

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

big horn sheep habitat 

would improve hunting 

and wildlife viewing 

opportunities.

-Motor vehicle 

restrictions in desert 

tortoise, Arizona night 

lizard, and Sonoran 

mountain king snake 

habitats could reduce 

motorized recreation 

opportunities.

motorized special events 

and the number of events 

could limit future 

expansion of those 

events.

-Ensuring connectivity of 

wildlife habitats could 

reduce motorized 

recreation by closing 

routes that cross sensitive 

areas or movement 

corridors.

-Wildlife viewing would 

be enhanced habitat 

enhancement projects.

and wildlife corridor 

could affect diminish 

recreational opportunities 

while enhancing wildlife 

viewing.

-Impacts from desert 

tortoise management 

similar to Alt B.

-Impacts from desert 

tortoise management 

similar to Alt B.

4.14.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

-More permits could lead 

to allocation and 

protection problems if 

larger numbers of tours 

and activities visit the 

same sites.

-Allocation to scientific 

use or preservation would 

limit certain sites for 

commercial or general 

recreation use.

-Route closures on the 

AFNM could reduce 

motorized recreation 

opportunities.

-Conflicts among users 

could reduce, and natural 

opportunities be 

enhanced.

-Developing education 

and interpretive programs 

would lead to a better 

appreciation of cultural 

resources.

-Improving routes and 

trails could open sites to a 

wider variety of users, but 

could limit access for 

some users.

-Developing five sites 

for High public use and 

four sites for Moderate 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except that one site would 

be allocated to High 

public use and eight sites 

would be allocated 

to Moderate public use.

-Impacts would be similar 

to Alt B, although this 

would not provide the 

educational and 

interpretive 

opportunities provided 

by Alt B.

-Restricting SRPs to 

educational tours could 

reduce recreational and 

educational opportunities 

for casual users.

-In the AFNM, no sites 

would be developed to 

High public use and one 

would be developed to 

Moderate use. 

-Education and awareness 

afforded by developed

sites would be least under 

this alternative. 

-Self-discovery 

opportunities would be 

greatest. 

-User conflicts could 

increase.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

would be similar as 

described for Alt B, 

except sites in two 

cultural priority areas 

would be developed for 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B

except that two sites 

would be developed for 

High public use and six 

sites for Moderate public 

use.

- closing of routes as a 

protective measure would 

impact recreational.

-In the BradshawHarquahala developing 

sites for public use in 

each cultural priority area 

would increase awareness 

and recreational 

opportunities for 

experiencing cultural 

resources.
365

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

public use in the AFNM

would increase access and 

education programs on 

16,000 acres.

-Development of public 

use sites in eight cultural 

priority areas would 

increase awareness and 

opportunities within 

Bradshaw-Harquahala.

public use. 

-Educational and 

interpreted recreational 

opportunities would be 

less than in Alt C. 

-Opportunities for selfdiscovery would increase, 

but conflicts between 

users increases.

4.14.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.14.7 From Recreation 

Management

-Increasing recreation 

could diminish the 

experience of some users 

and alter the setting for 

many activities.

-Could result in 

inappropriate use in 

sensitive areas, 

overcrowding and user 

conflicts.

-Dispersed camping 

expected to proliferate.

-Conflicts between users 

and resource disturbance 

are expected to escalate. 

-Closures of some OHV 

routes or activity areas 

could limit opportunities.

-In Bradshaw Harquahala, 

cross-country could 

disrupt other recreational 

settings. 

-Settings would shift over 

-Back Country RMZ 

would benefit nonmotorized activities.

-Front Country RMZ 

would concentrate more 

intensive uses.

-In the AFNM, 

restrictions on dispersed 

camping would reduce 

impacts.

-The two developed 

campgrounds would 

increase vehicle based 

camping opportunities.

-Some popular shooting 

areas would be closed for 

safety reasons. Shooters 

would be displaced to 

other areas.

-Connecting trails for 

non-motorized activities 

would enhance some 

opportunities and reduce 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to those 

to Alt B, except: Front 

Country would be 42,000 

acres and Back Country 

28,200 acres.

-Camping in Front 

Country allowed only at 

designated camp sites. 

-Impacts of developed 

campground similar as 

described in Alt B, but in 

only one place.

-Campfires allowed at 

campsites with some 

limitations.

-Impacts of recreational 

target shooting similar to 

Alt B, except the Front 

Country zone would be 

closed.

-Management actions in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt C, except: 

The Front Country zone 

reduced to 1,530 acres and 

the Back Country zone 

68,380 acres.

-Impacts of dispersed 

camping similar to Alt C, 

except restricted to 

designated sites.

-Designated routes 

include campsites.

-Campfires allowed at 

dispersed sites, but wood 

for campfires must be 

brought in from outside 

the AFNM. 

-Closure of the AFNM to 

recreational target 

shooting would displace 

all non-hunting shooters 

to locations outside the 

AFNM.

-In the AFNM, dispersed 

camping impacts similar 

to Alt B. 

-Impacts from vehicles of 

dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to 

Alt D.

-Recreational target 

shooting impacts similar 

to Alt D.

-Non-motorized trail 

connections would have 

impacts similar to Alt B.

-Black Canyon Trail 

would become a trail of 

regional significance for 

mountain bikers, 

equestrians, and hikers. 

-Management actions 

applied to the entire 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

would have impacts 

similar to Alt C.
366

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

time to more motorized 

settings. 

-Increased demand for 

large recreation events 

requiring SRPs would 

continue. 

-With no limits on the 

number of motorized 

competitive races the 

number of permits could 

increase.

conflicts.

-The North Black Canyon 

Trail SRMA would 

enhance non-motorized

opportunities.

-On the AFNM, 35 miles 

of route would be closed 

to reduce resource 

conflicts and 5 miles of 

new route construction 

would be built to improve 

route connectivity and 

looping opportunities.

-Cross-country travel 

would be prohibited for 

game retrieval, may 

diminish hunting 

opportunities. 

-Management of 149,760 

acres of BLM land in 

SRMAs would maintain 

opportunities and reduce 

conflicts. 

-Developed facilities 

would enhance recreation 

experience for many 

users.

-Increasing SRP permits 

to 12 on the AFNM could 

increase opportunities for 

structured tour groups, 

while increasing conflicts 

between commercial 

tours and casual users 

sites.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts from 

would reduce impacts on 

resources; maintain 

recreation opportunities 

and settings and increase.

-Staging and trail areas 

would enhance recreation 

experiences 

-In the AFNM, impacts of 

SRPs would be similar to 

Alt B, except the 

maximum number to be 

authorized across the 

AFNM would be six.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts from 

SRP management similar 

to Alt A, except: a 

maximum of six races per 

year. Races not allowed 

in the Table Mesa SRMA.

-Annual limits for races 

may result in races being 

relocated but conflicts 

minimized. 

-56,240 acres of SRMAs 

and RMZs allocated for 

intensive recreation 

management.

-Area available for 

intensive motorized use 

smaller than all other 

alternatives. 

-Many users and activities 

would be displaced to 

other areas. -Conflicts 

between casual users and 

larger group activities 

would intensify and 

conflicts between 

motorized and nonmotorized recreation 

could increase.

-Prohibiting SRPs in the 

AFNM may reduce ability 

of some users to 

experience the resources. 

-It could also eliminate 

conflicts between casual 

visitors and large groups, 

especially at popular 

locations.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts of 

SRPs would be similar to 

Alt A.

-Race limits lower than 

current.

-No races allowed in the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains 

SRMA would impact 

motorized racing because 

-384,510 acres would be 

allocated to SRMAs and 

RMZs in this alternative. 

-8motorized races would 

be allowed annually.

-The Yarnell SRMA 

impacts similar to Alt B.

-Access to the North 

Black Canyon Trail RMZ 

would enhance nonmotorized recreation 

experiences 

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts are 

similar to Alt C except: 

number of race events 

could be increased to 4 

per year in the Vulture 

Mountains RMZ.
367

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

SRPs would be similar to 

those described in Alt A 

except: the number of 

motorized competitive 

races would be limited to 

14 per year and spread to 

minimize user conflicts 

and allow OHV 

opportunities.

-The Yarnell SRMA 

would preserve hang 

gliding takeoff and 

landing areas.

-Restricting competitive, 

commercial, and 

organized group events 

could limit the 

opportunities for new 

events.

-VRM standards 

and recreation settings 

could limit existing 

events and prevent new 

events.

remaining area is less 

diverse and farther.

-Racing opportunities 

would be lost and the 

demand would not be met. 

4.14.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. -In the AFNM, managing 

12,700 acres as VRM 

Class II and 57,900 acres 

as Class III would 

maintain appearance of 

Back Country and allow 

Front Country to 

accommodate recreation 

activities.

-Elsewhere, VRM Class 

II in areas allocated to 

maintain wilderness 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

VRM Class III reduced to 

42,000 acres and VRM 

Class II increased to 

28,200 acres.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

107,843 acres allocated to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics and 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except VRM Class III 

reduced to 1,530 acres and 

VRM Class II increased to 

68,380 acres.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, 102,664 acres 

allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

and 98,500 acres of ONA 

ACEC managed for VRM 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

VRM Class III on 11,900

acres, and VRM Class II 

on 57,650 acres. 

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

67,279 acres allocated to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics managed 

as VRM Class II.
368

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

characteristics would 

retain appearance of 

naturalness.

-Improvements would 

need to be designed to 

meet VRM standards and 

may require design 

modifications to do so.

allocated to VRM Class 

II.

-Managing Sheep 

Mountain ONA ACEC as 

VRM Class I would 

enhance the visual setting 

of the area.

Class I. 

4.14.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-Conflicts between 

recreation users and 

livestock grazing 

increase. –Limited access 

across private lands 

would reduce recreation 

opportunities. 

-In the AFNM, grazing 

limitations would degrade 

the recreational 

experience during use 

periods. 

-Primitive recreation 

experience enhanced 

during non-use months. 

-Additional fencing may 

limit access.

-Improved conditions 

would enhance settings 

and improve wildlife 

viewing opportunities.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to those described 

for the AFNM above.

-Improved vegetation 

conditions would improve 

the recreation setting for 

non-motorized users.

-In the AFNM, removal 

of livestock from riparian 

areas would eliminate 

conflicts with cattle and 

enhance the recreational 

experience in those areas. 

-Other grazing related 

impacts similar to Alt B.

-Conflicts with livestock 

would be eliminated.

-Recreation experiences 

improve as recreation 

settings become free of 

livestock inconveniences.

-Access could be lost if 

ranchers sell private 

property.

Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.14.10 From Minerals 

Management

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts.

-Mining in popular 

recreation areas would 

degrade the experience.

-Most impacts would 

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts.

-Closing lands allocated 

to maintain wilderness 

characteristics and 

ACECs to mineral 

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except closing lands 

allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except closing lands 

allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

172,80 acres closed to 

mineral material disposal.

-Primitive recreation 
369

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

result from developing 

saleable minerals. 

material disposal would 

improve recreation 

opportunities and settings 

on 56,680 acres. 

-There would be no 

impacts from leasable 

minerals management

-Few impacts from 

locatable minerals.

and ACECs to mineral 

material disposal would 

improve recreation 

opportunities and settings 

on 163,220 acres.

-Visual settings 

maintained due to 

objectives.

and ACECs to mineral 

material disposal would 

improve recreation 

opportunities and settings 

on 284,280 acres.

-Recreation opportunities 

in undisturbed natural 

settings over the largest 

area under any of the 

alternatives.

opportunities in 

undisturbed natural 

settings.

4.14.11 From Fire 

Management

-Fires displace recreation 

users from burned areas 

until recovery. 

-Improved vegetation 

conditions could improve 

recreational experiences 

and wildlife viewing 

opportunities. 

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except natural fire starts 

could increase disruptions 

to recreation through area 

closures.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.14.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.14.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

-Motorized use in AFNM 

unchanged.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, Mechanized 

use would increase.

-Conflicts between 

various users would 

occur.

-Vehicle routes would 

remain open, and 

motorized 

recreation opportunities 

would not be affected.

-Recreation settings shift 

to more motorized. 

-In the AFNM, 134 miles 

of routes open.

-Route system would 

enhance opportunities for 

motorized recreation.

-Closing 37 miles of 

routes could limit 

opportunities for 

motorized recreation and 

displace some users.

-Limiting vehicles to 

inventoried routes would 

eliminate cross-country 

OHV travel.

-Some hunter access 

-In the AFNM, route 

designation impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

123 miles of routes 

remain open and 48 miles 

of existing routes would 

be closed.

-The impacts of route 

designation and 

developing route 

networks in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

similar to Alt B.

-In the AFNM, 48 miles 

of routes would be open 

and 123. miles closed.

-Opportunities for 

motorized recreation 

would be limited, and 

loop trails would not be 

developed.

-Opportunities for 

motorized recreation 

would diminish in some 

areas.

-Opportunities for nonmotorized recreation 

would be enhanced 

-In the AFNM impacts of 

route designations would 

be similar to Alt C, 

except 94 miles of route 

would be designated as 

open and 52 miles of

route would be closed.

-Impacts on opportunities 

for recreation in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area would be 

similar to Alt C. 

-The Black Canyon Trail 
370

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

could be limited.

-Development of new 

routes could be 

precluded.

-Developing connected 

route networks would 

provide expanded 

opportunities and reduce 

conflicts.

-The North Black Canyon 

Trail SRMA would 

enhance non-motorized 

recreation opportunities.

throughout the AFNM. 

-There would be more 

opportunity to experience 

solitude and natural 

landscape settings. 

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts from 

route designations on 

recreational opportunities 

would be similar to 

Alternative B.

from Carefree Highway 

to north of Highway 69 

would become a major 

trail of regional 

significance for mountain 

bikers, equestrians, and 

hikers.

-Opportunities for 

intensive motorized 

recreation is provided in 

various RMZs.

-The North Black Canyon 

Trail SRMA would 

enhance non-motorized 

recreation opportunities.

4.14.14 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, opportunities 

for primitive and nonmotorized

recreation would decline 

due to increasing 

motorized recreation and 

land use authorizations.

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, 56,040 acres 

of land would be 

managed to maintain 

wilderness characteristics. 

-Designation of these 

areas would limit 

motorized access to littleused routes. -Motorized 

recreation would be 

displaced.

-Crowded motorized 

routes would reduce the 

quality of dispersed 

recreational experiences.

-Non-motorized users 

would benefit from a 

more natural setting.

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B except 

107,843 acres would be 

managed to maintain 

wilderness characteristics

-More displacement of 

motorized recreation than 

Alt B.

-More non-motorized 

recreational opportunities 

than Alt B.

-Impacts are similar to 

Alts B and C with the 

exception, 140,235 acres 

would be managed to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics including 

37,571 acres in the Agua 

Fria National Monument.

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B and C 

except, 88,179 acres 

would be managed to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics.

-More non-motorized 

recreational opportunities 

than Alt B, but less than 

Alt C.
371

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.15 Impacts on Visual Resources

4.15.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

-Present conditions would 

be maintained. BLM 

would evaluate future 

projects for visual 

impacts.

-The two ACECs in the 

AFNM have no impact on 

visual resources.

-The Agua Fria River 

WSR guidance would 

benefit visual resources.

-In the BradshawHarquahala Planning 

Area, 5 wilderness areas 

would be managed by 

VRM Class I standards. 

-In the AFNM, WSR 

corridors maintain the 

natural views.

-Back Country Byway 

designation on the Bloody 

Basin Road would have 

low impacts.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, retaining the 

Harquahala Mtn Summit 

Road would not affect 

existing scenic quality. 

-The wilderness areas 

would remain under 

VRM Class I. 

-Tule Creek ACEC would 

improve conditions and 

restrictions would 

steadily improve visual 

resource.

-In the AFNM, WSR 

impacts similar to Alt B. -

ACECs requiring fencing 

could degrade visual 

resources.

-ACEC required route 

closures could improve 

visual character.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except:

7 ACECs could slightly 

degrade visual resources 

with fencing, but improve 

visual resources by 

prohibiting mining, 

closing roads, prohibiting 

construction of facilities.

-Wilderness impacts

similar to Alt B.

-In the AFNM, WSR 

impacts similar to Alt B. –

Impacts from ACECs 

similar to Alt C, but over 

a larger area.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

would be similar to those 

described in Alt B except: 

impacts from 8 ACECs 

would be similar to Alt C, 

except over a larger area. 

-Wilderness impacts 

similar to Alt B.

-In the AFNM, WSR 

impacts similar to Alt B. 

except no by-way 

impacts.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt C.

4.15.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-In the AFNM, land 

acquisitions, rights-ofway and utilities would 

be evaluated for visual 

impacts on a case-by-case 

basis.

-New utility proposals 

could impact the visual 

character of the 

landscape.

-Impacts would be along 

the western edge of the 

AFNM where existing 

facilities exist.

-In the Bradshaw-

-In both planning areas, 

acquired lands would be 

subject to Visual 

Resource Management.

-Land disposal could 

impair visual resources by 

eliminating VRM 

standards.

-Designating utility 

corridors could increase 

potential for 

development.

-Narrow corridors allow 

placement in disturbed 

areas.

-Impacts from land tenure 

changes, corridors and 

authorizations would be 

similar to Alt B, except:

-Eliminating the existing 

utility corridor in the 

AFNM would eliminate 

potential impacts of 

future utilities.

-Expansion of the 

corridor to the west could 

extend facilities into sight 

of Sunset Point Scenic 

Overlook, but would 

allow room for route that 

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

-Impacts in AFNM from 

utility corridors would be 

similar to those under Alt 

C.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, no lands 

identified for disposal.

- Impacts in AFNM from 

utility corridors would be 

similar to those under Alt 

B.

- In the BradshawHarquahala impacts from 

utility corridors would be 

similar to a combination 

of Alt B and C.

- Expanding the Black 

Canyon Utility Corridor 

allows for future 

development with 

flexibility to adjust 

facilities to minimize 
372

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

Harquahala, no impacts 

are expected from land 

acquisition. 

-Disposal actions would 

be evaluated on a caseby-case basis.

-Future actions on 

disposal lands would not 

conform to VRM 

standards.

-Various authorizations 

would degrade visual 

qualities.

-Wide corridors allow 

route selection to 

minimize impacts.

-All utilities and telecom 

projects are evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis and 

mitigated to minimize 

impacts and conform to 

VRM class.

-The Wickenburg Bypass 

corridor would be 

inconsistent with VRM 

objectives. 

minimizes visibility. visual impacts.

-All other lands impacts 

similar to Alt B.

4.15.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

-Project designs 

minimizing or mitigating 

air quality impacts would 

maintain visual 

landscape.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.15.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

-Negligible impacts are 

expected.

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except:

-Wildlife project design 

to VRM Class I and II 

standard would reduce 

visual impacts.

-WHA management 

prescriptions could 

improve visual 

landscapes.

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except WHAs in more 

areas.

Impacts similar to Alt C, 

except some WHAs are 

managed in ACECs.

Impacts similar to Alt C.

4.15.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. -Implementing protective 

measures could impair 

visual resources.

-Closing routes and 

-Impacts in both areas 

would be similar to those 

described in Alt B. 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B 

except no sites would be 

allocated to High public 

use.

-Impacts in AFNM would 

be would be similar to Alt 

C.

-Impacts in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 
373

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

restricting grazing could 

increase vegetation cover, 

improving visual 

resources.

-Commercial and group 

tours could degrade visual 

resources.

-In the AFNM high 

public use areas could 

add visitor facilities, signs 

and improve routes 

impacting visual.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, public use 

sites would have similar 

impacts to those 

described in the AFNM. 

-Public use sites would be 

developed in all eight 

SCRMAs.

- In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B. 

Planning Area would be 

similar to Alt B.

4.15.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.15.7 From Recreation 

Management

-In both areas, visual 

resources impacts would 

occur from installing 

signs and target shooting.

- Large public land area 

OHV activity would 

continue to affect visual 

resources with dust. 

-As visitation increases 

-In the AFNM, Front 

Country maintaining or 

enhancing visitor travel 

could impact visual 

resources with facilities.

-In the Back Country 

zone no impacts are 

expected.

-In the Passage zone 

- In the AFNM impacts 

would be similar to those 

discussed for Alt B 

except Front Country and 

Passage impacts are 

reduced from Alt B.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B.

-In the AFNM impacts 

would be similar to those 

discussed for Alt B except 

Front Country impacts are 

reduced and Passage 

impacts are increased 

from Alt B. 

- In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

-In the AFNM impacts 

would be similar to those 

discussed for Alt B 

except Front Country 

impacts are reduced and 

Passage impacts are 

increased from Alt B.

- In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 
374

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

visual qualities could be 

further degraded by 

landscape damage and 

increasing dust.

some visitor related 

development could occur, 

would maintain visual 

character.

-In the BradshawHarquahala Visual 

resources could be 

affected by the 

development of 

recreational and visitor 

facilities. 

-Motorized events could 

alter the visual landscape 

by reducing local visual 

clarity.

similar to Alt B. similar to Alt B.

4.15.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

-The visual landscape is 

expected to gradually 

decline.

-VRM application 

inconsistent.

-In the AFNM, 57,900 

acres would be allocated 

to VRM Class III, 12,700 

allocated to VRM Class II 

and visual landscapes 

would be protected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, VRM 

management consistent.

-Some visual intrusions 

but expected to be 

minimal.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except: 42,000 acres

managed as class III and 

28,200 acres managed as 

VRM Class II.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

more area included in 

VRM Class II.

-Preserves natural 

landscape over larger 

areas than Alt B.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except: 1,530 acres 

managed as Class III and 

69, 380 acre managed as 

class II.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt C, except 

more area included in 

VRM Class I.

-Preserves natural 

landscape over larger 

areas than Alt C.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except: 11,900 acres 

managed as Class III and 

57,650 acre managed as 

class II.

- In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt C.

4.15.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-Construction of livestock 

facilities could contribute 

to decline in visual 

quality.

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except:

-Construction of features 

to restrict access to 

riparian areas would 

impair while improve 

vegetative from actions 

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except the improvements 

to riparian vegetation 

would be faster.

-Visual impacts from 

some range facilities 

would be removed. 

-Improved vegetation 

conditions would improve 

visual landscapes. 

-Additional livestock 

Impacts similar to Alt B.
375

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

would improve views. facilities on non-Federal

lands or private land 

development could 

degrade visual landscapes.

4.15.10 From Minerals 

Management

-In the AFNM, mineral 

development on existing 

claims would have 

minimal impacts on 

visual resource.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, mining 

would alter the visual 

landscape adding surface 

disturbance, facilities, and 

routes.

-Localized degradation of 

air quality and visual 

clarity could occur from 

mining.

-The five Wilderness 

areas continue to be 

closed to mineral 

development.

-Visual impacts from the 

different types of mining 

would be eliminated on 

the following lands 

(including Wilderness 

acres):

 167,720 acres closed to 

saleable minerals

 171,680 acres closed to 

locatable minerals

 171,680 acres closed to 

leasable minerals

-In the AFNM, impacts

similar to Alt A.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, minerals 

management could affect 

visual resources over 

most of the planning area. 

Mining impacts would be 

minimized by compliance 

with VRM standards.

-Alt B would protect the 

visual landscape more 

than would Alt A.

-In addition, mining 

would be prohibited from 

some lands as follows:

 224,400 acres closed to 

saleable minerals

 101,000 acres closed to 

locatable minerals

 101,000 acres closed to 

leasable mineral

-In both areas, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

that visual impacts from 

the different types of 

mining would be 

eliminated on the 

following lands 

(including Wilderness 

acres): 

 330,940 acres closed to 

saleable minerals

 188,450 acres closed to 

locatable minerals 

188,190 acres closed to 

leasable minerals

-In both areas, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

that visual impacts from 

the different types of 

mining would be 

eliminated on the 

following lands (including 

Wilderness acres): 

 452,000 acres closed to 

saleable minerals 

 457,664 acres closed to 

locatable minerals

 464,734 acres closed to 

leasable minerals

-In both areas, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

that visual impacts from 

the different types of 

mining would be 

eliminated on the 

following lands 

(including Wilderness 

acres): 

 167,720 acres closed to 

saleable minerals

 171,940 acres closed to 

locatable minerals

 171,680 acres closed to 

leasable minerals

4.15.11 From Fire -Prescribed burning -Impacts similar to Alt A Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
376

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

Management would reduce visual 

quality in the short term 

but improve vegetation 

health and visual quality 

in the long term.

-Wildfires would have a 

similar affect, but in non 

fire adapted communities 

visual impacts could last 

for decades.

except some natural start 

fires may be allowed to 

burn in the AFNM, 

increasing slightly the 

potential visual impacts.

4.15.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. Removal of burros in the 

Harquahala Herd Area 

could improve vegetation 

cover and visual 

resources.

Impacts similar to Alt C. Impacts similar to Alt C.

4.15.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, new roads 

and routes authorized or 

pioneered could 

eventually create visual 

disturbances in the 

planning area.

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, a wide range 

of impacts are 

anticipated from 

management of travel, 

travel management.

-Small transportation 

projects would 

be mitigated and 

consistent to the 

appropriate VRM classes.

Impacts similar to Alt B. -In the AFNM, no impacts 

are expected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, less adverse 

impacts are anticipated. 

Impacts would be greatly 

reduced than those 

considered under Alt B 

and C. 

-As described in Alt B, 

there could be visual 

impacts from major 

county, state and federal 

highway projects.

-Overall, allocated VRM 

classes would maintain or 

enhance the appearance of 

public lands. 

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

would be similar to those 

under Alt B and projects 

would be installed mostly 

consistent with VRM 

objectives.

4.15.14 From 

Management of 

No impacts. -Visual and scenic 

resource conditions 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
377

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

Wilderness 

Characteristics

would be maintained and 

protected in areas 

allocated to maintain 

wilderness 

characteristics.

-Light pollution could be 

less and dark skies more 

effectively maintained.

4.16 Impacts on Rangeland Management

4.16.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

-Exclusion of grazing in 

Larry Canyon ACEC has 

a negligible effect on 

rangeland management.

-If WSR corridors are 

designated, winter use 

only livestock use in 

riparian segments would 

be implemented.

-Vegetation health and 

density would improve, 

and with it forage 

conditions in the riparian 

areas would improve. 

-During the period the 

riparian is closed, the 

altered livestock 

distribution could cause 

increased disturbance in 

areas livestock 

congregate.

-Slight potential of 

vehicle-livestock impacts 

along the Harquahala 

Summit Scenic Road 

Back Country Byway.

-Designation of the 

Bloody Basin Road and 

Constellation Mine Road 

as back country byways 

would increase traffic in 

the area, therefore 

increasing animal-vehicle 

collisions.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, Tue Creek 

ACEC would exclude 

grazing from fenced 

areas, improving health of 

riparian vegetation and 

negligibly decrease 

AUMs for the grazing 

allotment.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

-Exclusion of livestock 

from 810 acres of riparian 

ACEC in the AFNM 

would have a negligible 

affect on livestock 

grazing.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, reduced 

surface disturbance from 

non-grazing activities 

restricted by ACEC 

designation on 55,710

acres would improve 

forage conditions and 

reduce potential for 

vehicle-animal collisions.

-Back country byway 

impacts similar to Alt B.

-Management of the 

13,070 acres of ACEC in 

the AFNM would improve 

range conditions by 

reducing vehicle traffic, 

damage to riparian 

vegetation, disturbance by 

recreational users, and 

potential vectoring of 

noxious and invasive 

species.

-Designation of 8 ACEC 

in the BradshawHarquahala would have 

similar impacts to Alt C, 

but over a larger area 

(192,800 acres).

-In the AFNM, there are 

no impacts from Special 

Area Designations.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts from 

ACECs would be similar 

to Alt C, except the 

ACEC acreage would 

cover 89,970 acres.
378

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.16.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, maintenance 

or construction of utilities 

in corridors may disturb 

vegetation and disrupt 

grazing operations.

-Acquiring privately 

owned and state-held 

lands could consolidate 

management, and 

increase AUMs.

-Land disposal of 54,370 

acres would reduce 

available grazing lands. 

-AUMs may be reduced 

or whole allotments may 

be closed. 

-In the AFNM, narrowing 

utility corridor would 

restrict impacts to 

vegetation from new 

utility. 

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt A, except:

Lands available for 

disposal would be 58,400 

acres. 

Authorized AUMs might 

need to be adjusted. 

Total acreage would be 

less than 6% of grazing 

land.

-Eliminating the Black 

Canyon corridor would 

eliminate development 

impacts.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt A. 

-Impacts of the land 

tenure adjustment of 

49,100 acres similar to 

Alt B.

-Impacts to rangeland 

vegetation would be 

similar to that described in 

Alt C.

-Impacts to grazing and 

livestock would end with 

the cessation of grazing.

-In the AFNM impacts to 

rangeland vegetation and 

grazing would be similar 

to Alt B.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

would be similar to Alt C, 

except that 38,755 acres 

would be offered for 

disposal (4% of available 

grazing land).

-Utility impacts similar to 

Alt A.

4.16.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

-Livestock authorizations 

could be modified to meet 

standards.

-Reduced livestock 

numbers would improve 

range conditions.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.16.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

-In the AFNM, the use of 

prescribed fires could 

improve vegetation 

quantity and quality but 

disrupt pasture rotations.

-Limits on mechanical 

vegetation treatment 

could assist invasive 

species.

-Fence modifications 

could movement of 

-Impacts on the AFNM 

similar to Alt A.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, prohibiting 

construction of range 

improvements in Browns 

Canyon could limit 

opportunities to improve 

livestock distribution in 

the Aguila allotment. 

-Potential restrictions to 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
379

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

livestock across pastures 

and allotments creating 

additional work for 

permittees.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, mitigation 

and closure of waters 

could result in poor 

livestock distribution and 

added operation costs.

-Sheep restrictions would 

adversely impact 

operators.

-Bighorn lambing 

restrictions would impact 

livestock distribution and 

use patterns.

vehicle routes could limit 

access to range facilities 

and increase maintenance 

costs. 

-Prohibiting domestic 

sheep and goat grazing 

within 9 miles of 

occupied desert bighorn 

sheep habitat would 

affect 1 grazing allotment 

where sheep are currently 

an authorized class of 

livestock.

4.16.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

-Site protection measures 

to exclude livestock from 

sites through fencing may 

slightly reduce available 

forage.

-For both planning areas, 

High public use 

development would 

damage vegetation in the 

area of the site 

construction. If the 

protected areas contain 

livestock waters, alternate 

sources would need to be 

found or developed.

-Moderate public use area 

impacts to vegetation 

would be minimal, and 

Low public use impacts 

would even be smaller.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.16.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.
380

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.16.7 From Recreation 

Management

-Current OHV 

management has lead to 

proliferation of vehicle 

routes, disturbance to 

vegetation, vehicleanimal encounters, and 

vandalism of range 

improvements and private 

property. 

-SRPs have the potential 

to have similar effects, 

but may be slightly lower 

due to restrictions.

-Recreation allocations on 

the AFNM are would 

increase visitation, bring 

increased vehicle 

numbers, increasing 

animal-vehicle 

encounters, and vectoring 

of invasive weeds.

-Limiting vehicles to 

designated routes would 

reduce vehicle related 

impacts.

-Other recreation impacts 

in the BradshawHarquahala would 

include target shooting 

being restrictions on 

27,570 acres would 

decrease risk of animal 

stress and mortality. 

-Campground/staging 

areas could require 

adjustment to authorized 

livestock numbers.

-New trails established 

for pedestrian, nonmotorized, and motorized 

use could increase animal 

stress and potential 

mortality from collisions 

with vehicles.

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

-In the AFNM, RMZs 

would reduce peoplelivestock encounters and 

associated visitor impacts. 

-Reductions in route 

miles may make some 

areas difficult to access, 

increasing operating costs 

of grazing permits.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, target 

shooting restrictions 

could further reduce 

potential conflicts with 

livestock. 

-Reduced SRPs issued to 

motorized race events 

could reduce the risk of 

disturbance to livestock 

and mortality from 

collisions with vehicles.

Impacts to rangeland 

resources and remaining 

facilities similar to Alt C, 

except that the elimination 

of grazing would remove 

impacts to livestock.

In the AFNM, impacts 

from allocations for 

RMZs similar to Alt C.

For both planning areas, 

confining vehicles to 

designated routes would 

have impacts are similar 

to Alt C. 

Activities authorized 

through Special 

Recreation Permits 

(SRPs) are expected to 

have impacts similar to 

those in Alt B.

4.16.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Impacts from VRM 

management could 

include increased costs, 

project relocation or 

possible denial.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. No impacts are expected. Impacts similar to Alt A.
381

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.16.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-Implementation of the 

Land Health Standards 

and Guidelines for 

Grazing Administration 

could reduce livestock 

numbers, rest or close 

pastures, or convert some 

pastures or allotments to 

ephemeral use.

-These standards would 

also improve and 

maintain range 

conditions.

Riparian areas would 

improve health and 

density of vegetation. 

Livestock distributions 

may be disrupted in some 

areas, and loss of water 

sources in summer may 

require development of 

range improvements to 

replace the lost water. 

Impacts similar to Alt A Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except:

-Prohibiting grazing in 

riparian areas in the 

AFNM would close 

25,989 acres to livestock. 

Prohibiting grazing in 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

would potentially close 

249,400 acres to 

livestock.

-For both planning areas, 

the potential loss in 

availability to livestock 

grazing from riparian 

closure would be greater 

than for closing upland 

areas. The loss of water 

sources in some instances 

could result in no grazing 

on public lands. Riparian 

vegetation and vegetation 

cover would increase 

more rapidly than in Alt 

A.

-Closing all allotments to 

grazing would eliminate 

13,492 AUMs in the 

AFNM and 69,568 AUMs 

in the BradshawHarquahala. If ranchers 

cannot find alternative 

forage for their livestock, 

holders of all 104 permits 

and leases would go out of 

business. Cost of removal 

of unnecessary range 

improvements would be 

born by the BLM, as well 

as costs of maintaining 

facilities used for other 

purposes.

-Vegetation conditions 

would improve until 

environmental stability is 

reached.

Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.16.10 From Minerals 

Management

-The AFNM is closed to 

new mineral entry.

-Impacts in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala are 

expected to be negligible.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.16.11 From Fire 

Management

-Short term impacts from 

removal of forage and 

closure of pastures before 

and after burning. 

-Fire treatments would 

improve vegetation 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.
382

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

quality and quantity.

4.16.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

-No impacts in the 

AFNM.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, maintaining 

the Lake Pleasant HMA 

has negligible impact.

-Removing all burros 

from Harquahala HA 

would increase 

vegetation, improve 

riparian, and reduce 

competition for water 

with livestock.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.16.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

Vehicle limitations in 

Perry Mesa ACEC have 

reduced the potential for 

upland vegetation damage 

by unauthorized crosscountry OHV travel.

-Damage to roadside 

vegetation has increased 

due to unauthorized OHV 

travel around poorly 

maintained segments of 

roadway. Decreased 

OHV travel would reduce 

the potential for animal 

stress. --The OHV travel 

restriction has also 

decreased the potential 

for animal-vehicle 

collisions.

Limiting vehicular travel 

in these same areas would 

reduce damage to upland 

and riparian vegetation, 

stress to animals, risk of 

animal-vehicle collisions, 

and potential vectoring of 

noxious weeds.

Impacts similar to Alt B. No impacts. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.16.14 From 

Management of 

No impacts are expected. For both planning areas, 

small impacts are 

Impacts similar to Alt B. No impacts. Impacts similar to Alt B.
383

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

Wilderness 

Characteristics

expected by preventing 

the construction of new 

range improvements. 

This may have an adverse 

impact on improving 

livestock distribution 

through the prohibition of 

development of new 

livestock waters.

4.17 Impacts on Minerals and Energy Resources

4.17.1 From 

Management of Special 

Area Designations

Mining closed in 

designated areas, 

including wilderness and 

the AFNM prevents any 

potential resources in 

these areas from being 

developed. Potential is 

low for leasable minerals, 

moderate for salable 

minerals, and varies for 

locatable minerals. 

Current needs and future 

demands of public users 

would be affected.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except Tule Creek ACEC 

in Bradshaw-Harquahala 

would be closed to 

mining. This is expected 

to have negligible impact. 

This could result in a loss 

of economic opportunity 

or prohibit future 

development or 

expansion.

Impacts similar to Alt A 

in the AFNM. Impacts in 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

would be similar to Alt B, 

except more areas would 

be closed to mining 

including Sheep 

Mountain RNA ACEC. 

Material disposal in 

Vulture Mountains 

Raptor Area ACEC and 

Black Butte ONA ACEC 

would prevent the sale of 

sand, gravel and 

decorative rock.

Impacts similar to Alt C, 

except more acreage 

would be specially 

designated.

Mineral development 

would also be closed in 

Baldy Mountain ONA 

ACEC, Harquahala 

Mountains ONA ACEC, 

and Vulture Mountains 

ACEC. Any potential 

leasing and sales would 

not occur in the BelmontBig Horn Mountains 

ACEC. 

Acreage of closures are 

similar to Alt A, but 

Desired Future 

Conditions for the 

ACECs makes the 

impacts more like Alt C.

4.17.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM.

-Acquisition of nonFederal mineral estate in 

two RCAs would increase 

potentially developable 

mineral resources.

-Closure of reconveyed 

No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM.

-Rights-of-way, leases, 

and patents establish 

superior rights to future 

mineral development, but 

may also cause access 

restrictions. However, 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except opening small 

tracts and reconveyed 

lands for high potential 

areas only would limit 

future development 

opportunities. This would 

potentially reduce conflict 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except that keeping all 

small tract and 

reconveyed lands closed 

to mineral development 

would be the same as Alt 

A.

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except small tract lands 

would remain closed. 

Reconveyed lands would 

be opened, but riparian 

areas would remain 

closed to mineral material 

sales. Impacts to mining 
384

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

lands in the Black 

Canyon corridor 

precludes opportunities 

for mineral development. 

-Small tract lands closed 

to location could cause 

conflicts with surface 

owners.

-Utility developments 

could restrict access and 

interfere with mineral 

removal.

-Impacts are addressed 

when specific proposals 

are developed.

rights-of-way for roads, 

highways, and powerlines 

could improve access and 

infrastructure.

-Land ownership 

adjustments may dispose 

of or acquire valuable 

mineral resources.

-Opening reconveyed 

lands to mineral 

development might 

provide further 

opportunities.

-Opening small tracts to 

locatable mineral 

development could 

increase opportunities but 

potentially create conflict 

with surface owners.

with surface owners. development are expected 

to be minimal.

4.17.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

No impacts in AFNM.

Actions to protect soil, 

air, and water resources 

generally increase mine 

productions costs, 

occasionally rendering 

operations economically 

unfeasible.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.17.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

No impacts in the AFNM.

Tortoise habitat 

restrictions decrease 

opportunities for 

developing mineral 

resources.

-Stipulations and 

mitigation for wildlife 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.
385

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

increase operating costs 

and permitting 

timeframes, and may 

potentially constrain 

mining actions.

-Mineral development is 

restricted in habitat for 

T&E species and 

discovery of a T&E 

species may interrupt 

operations.

4.17.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Cultural survey and 

mitigation for found 

cultural resources create 

delays in approval of 

mining operations and 

increase cost of mineral 

development.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.17.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

Discovery of 

paleontological resources 

could increase the costs 

of mineral extraction.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.17.7 From Recreation 

Management

No impacts in the AFNM.

Allocations such as 

SRMAs might limit 

potential surface 

disturbances and where 

development can occur. 

Compliance with 

management prescriptions 

could increase costs.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.17.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

VRM managed to Class 

III, except wilderness is 

Class I. Class III is not 

-Impacts of VRM Class 

III and IV would be 

similar to current 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
386

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

expected to affect 

minerals and energy 

management.

standards, though Class 

IV would allow additional 

flexibility.

-VRM Class I and II 

would increase mining 

costs.

-Some discretionary 

mining and related 

infrastructure may be 

excluded.

4.17.9 From Rangeland 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.17.10 From Minerals 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.17.11 From Fire 

Management

Wildfires may affect 

access to mineral 

resources during fire 

operations. Management 

can protect mine 

developments from 

wildfires.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.17.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.17.13 From Land 

Health Standards

Land Health Standards 

would raise reclamation 

standards and costs, and 

result in a greater delay in 

bond release.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.17.14 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

-No impacts are expected. -Authorization would be 

required to drive off road 

to access mining claims 

or conduct exploration. 

-Fewer access roads 

would inhibit access for 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
387

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

prospecting. 

-Improved road 

conditions leading to 

improved access would 

facilitate operating 

existing and potential 

mines.

4.17.15 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

No impacts are expected. -Lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be 

closed to mineral material 

disposal. 

-Closing these areas 

would prevent the 

exploitation of potential 

resources.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B 

except that in addition to 

closing lands allocated for 

management of 

wilderness characteristics 

to mineral material 

disposal, mineral and 

geothermal leasing would 

also be prohibited. 

Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.18 Impacts on Fire and Fuel Resources

4.18.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

-In areas with limits on 

motorized vehicles, the 

potential for humancaused wildfire ignitions 

could be reduced. 

-Travel restrictions would 

not affect management. 

Areas of limited 

development with fewer 

improvements and 

structures would affect 

suppression. 

-Wilderness areas could 

limit suppression and 

access. Motorized 

equipment may be used 

in emergency 

circumstances, affecting 

fire suppression strategies 

Designation of 

Bloody Basin Road

and Constellation Mine 

Road as Back Country 

Byways could 

increase the risk of 

human caused fires.

-Vehicular travel could be 

further limited in this 

alternative, decreasing 

risk of human-caused 

ignition. 

-Prohibiting grazing in 

the Harquahala 

Mountains ACEC could 

increase fine fuels on the 

surface, resulting in easier 

ignition and a more 

continuous fuel bed.

Impacts similar to Alt C. Impacts similar to Alt C.
388

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

and options for fuel 

treatment.‖ The use of 

motorized equipment to 

fight wildfire in 

emergency circumstances 

in wilderness can be 

authorized

4.18.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Continued use of existing 

utility rights-of-way 

could increase 

opportunities for human 

caused ignition.

-Improvements and 

structures require 

additional fire protection,

introduce hazards to 

aircraft and ground 

resources, and restrict fire 

operations, thereby 

increasing overall costs.

-Utility maintenance 

impacts minimal. Utility 

construction could benefit 

suppression in the short 

term and encourage weed 

invasions in the long 

term. 

-Disposing of 54,370 

acres can consolidate 

federal lands, making fire 

operations more efficient 

and less expensive.

-Conversion of disposed 

acres to development 

would increase human 

populations and change 

ignition potential, fire 

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except disposal increases 

to 58,400 acres.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except disposal decreases 

to 49,100 acres.

Impacts similar to Alt A. 

However, impacts related 

to land disposal are 

eliminated as no acres are

available for disposal.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except potential disposal 

acres are 38,755.
389

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

behavior, and risk 

decisions.

4.18.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

-Meeting air quality 

standards limits the 

amount of prescribed 

burning. An approved 

prescribed burn plan 

defines measures that 

would be taken to reduce 

impacts. 

-Implementing prescribed 

fire in fire-adapted 

environments and fuel 

treatments in other highrisk locations would 

improve watershed 

conditions, increase soil 

cover, and promote 

proper water flows.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.18.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Management of sensitive 

species limits prescribed 

fire, fire treatment, and 

fire suppression 

operations.

The allocation of WHAs 

may decrease the 

occurrence of humancaused fires and overall 

suppression costs.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except further restrictions 

could reduce visitor use 

and decrease the 

opportunity for humancaused ignitions. 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.18.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

The use of MIST 

minimizes the impacts on 

cultural resources and the 

landscape, although 

unintentional damage 

could occur.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except increased public 

visitation from 

development of public 

use cultural sites may 

increase the risk of 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except the number of sites 

developed for public use 

would be less and 

276,527 acres are 

allocated to SCRMAs.

Impacts similar to Alt C, 

except the number of sites 

developed for public use 

would be less than in Alt 

C and 125,292 acres are 

allocated to SCRMAs. 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except the number of sites 

developed for public use 

would be less (but more 

than for Alt C).
390

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

For fire suppression, 

consideration for cultural 

resources can result in 

larger fires and higher 

costs. 

Mitigation measures 

during prescribed burning 

would increase costs and 

time associated with 

planning projects, and 

excludes some areas from 

prescribed burns.

human caused fires. In 

addition, increased 

numbers and types of 

facilities could lead to 

changes in suppression 

decisions and 

commitments of 

suppression resources

In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 

impacts would increase 

due to allocation of 

316,103 acres SCRMAs 

and developing sites for 

interpretation.

4.18.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.18.7 From Recreation 

Management

As recreation use 

increases so would fire 

frequency.

Target shooting increases 

the potential for ignitions 

as shooting is a common 

cause of wildfire in some 

areas.

Continued dispersed 

camping would increase 

the risk of human-caused 

ignitions.

In both planning areas, 

increased visitor use 

could increase the risk of 

human-caused fires and 

change suppression 

decisions, prioritization of 

resources, and resulting 

costs.

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except the restriction of 

vehicle use in SRMAs 

could decrease the 

potential of humancaused ignition.

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except more routes would 

be closed than in Alt C.

Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.18.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.18.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Livestock grazing can 

reduce the loading of fine 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
391

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

fuels, reducing the 

frequency and size of 

wild fires.

Grazing can also convert 

ecological types resulting 

in lower frequencies but 

higher intensities. 

Conversion to fire 

dependent annual grass 

communities greatly 

increases fire risk in these 

areas and may result in 

the eventual loss of native 

desert vegetation. 

Improvements for 

managing livestock 

present potential hazards 

to fire fighters and fire 

operations. 

Suppression actions often 

depend on water from 

range improvements.

In areas planned for fire 

treatment, livestock use 

can remove enough 

forage to preclude 

prescribed burning. 

4.18.10 From Minerals 

Management

-Mineral development in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

could increase humancaused fire ignitions. 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.
392

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

-Development associated 

with mining also 

increases the risk and 

complexity of wildland 

fire suppression 

operations. 

-No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM.

4.18.11 From Fire 

Management

-Full suppression of all 

wildfires helps to keep 

some fires small, 

reducing harm to 

resources.

-In BradshawHarquahala 14,000 acres 

have been selected for 

prescribed fire treatments 

for hazardous fuel 

accumulations and reduce 

the threat of large 

catastrophic wildfires. 

-Prescribed fire 

operations would also be 

limited and costs 

increased.

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except wildland fire could 

be allowed if defined 

prescriptive conditions 

are being met, especially 

in the AFNM‘s tobosa 

grasslands. 

-Wildland fire use would 

be beneficial in both 

planning areas except in 

the Sonoran Desert 

vegetation communities.

 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.18.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.18.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

-Restricting vehicles to 

existing roads and trails 

would reduce the 

potential for accidental 

human-caused ignitions. 

-Initially, no major 

impacts are expected, but 

as

increases in vehicle travel 

-Impacts to fire would be 

similar to those described 

for Alt A. 

-Restricting vehicles to 

designated roads would 

reduce potential humancaused ignitions.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
393

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

on designated routes 

continue, the potential for 

human-caused fire would 

also increase.

4.18.14 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

No impacts are expected. For both planning areas, 

management of 

wilderness characteristics 

may impact fire 

suppression by preventing 

the construction of new 

firelines using heavy 

equipment. Management 

response would offset the 

impacts from the potential 

loss of heavy equipment. 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.19 Impacts on Wild Horses and Burros 

4.19.1 From Management 

of Special Area 

Designations

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.19.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.19.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.19.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Development of springs 

and seeps to improve 

ecological function could 

improve forage 

conditions and reliable 

water supplies. However, 

fencing those areas would 

reduce availability of 

forage and water.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except for the Harquahala 

Mountain WHA 

allocation which would 

have no effect on the 

burros.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
394

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.19.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Fencing cultural sites 

could reduce available 

range and forage for 

burros. The impact is 

expected to be negligible.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except development of 

sites for public use could

result in the increased 

congregation of visitors. 

This could increase the 

risk of injury to both 

visitors and burros and 

may reduce the quantity 

and quality of habitat.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.19.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.19.7 From Recreation 

Management

Increasing OHV use can 

increase vehicle-burro 

conflicts and burrohuman encounters, 

increasing the risk of 

injury to both people and 

burros. Increased 

vegetation disturbance 

from recreation uses 

could slightly reduce 

available forage.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except Areas allocated to 

non-motorized settings 

could help minimize 

impacts to vegetation 

from motorized 

recreation, increasing 

available forage.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.19.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.19.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-Implementing Rangeland 

Health Standards and

Guidelines for Grazing 

Management could 

improve habitat 

conditions.

-Maintaining existing 

grazing practices could 

result in more water 

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except construction of 

fences or other barriers to 

restrict riparian grazing 

could also restrict burros.

-This could limit 

available forage and 

water, decrease available 

range size and increase 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Eliminating grazing 

would eliminate forage 

and water competition 

between burros and 

livestock. Removal of 

unneeded grazing 

improvements could 

decrease water sources, 

but may also allow burros 

Impacts similar to Alt B.
395

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

sources, but competition 

for these sources and 

forage would continue.

competition. to expand their range.

4.19.10 From Minerals 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.19.11 From Fire 

Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.19.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

-Management of the Lake 

Pleasant HMA would 

potentially enhance 

genetic viability of the 

herd. The social structure 

of the herd may be 

disrupted by removal of 

burros.

-All burros from the 

Harquahala HA are to be 

removed. 

-Impacts to the Lake 

Pleasant HMA would be 

similar to Alt A.

-The Harquahala HA 

would not become an 

HMA, and removal of 

nuisance burros and 

burros damaging sensitive 

habitats could result in 

elimination of the herd.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.19.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

Increasing OHV use 

could increase the 

possibility of vehicleburro conflicts and cause 

a loss of habitat. The 

amount of available 

forage could be slightly 

reduced. The incidence 

of burro-human 

encounters could 

increase, intensifying the 

risk of injury to people 

and burros.

-Designated motorized 

routes could decrease the 

amount of available 

habitat and increase the 

risk of bodily injury to 

burros. Increasing 

levels of use by visitors 

on designated nonmotorized trails would 

further fragment burro 

habitat. Burros could be 

harassed by visitors.

-Areas allocated to nonmotorized settings could 

minimize impacts to 

vegetation from 

motorized recreation, and 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
396

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

increase available forage.

4.19.14 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

No impacts are expected. -Lands with wilderness 

characteristics would 

have minimal impacts on 

the number or location of 

wild burros. 

-Harassment would be 

less since most areas with 

wilderness characteristics 

have few trails and 

overall lower levels of 

visitation. Increases in 

primitive recreation in 

burro areas could increase 

harassment and 

movement of burros away 

from visitors. This would 

be significant only if the 

visitors occupy critical 

burro watering areas 

during periods of heat 

stress.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.20 Travel Management

4.20.1 From Special Area 

Designations

-The AFNM ACECs 

would have no impacts on 

access.

-WSR non-impairment 

guidelines could restrict 

use of some routes.

-Five designated 

wilderness areas (96,820 

acres) in BradshawHarquahala would remain 

closed to motorized 

vehicle use. 

-WSR impacts on the 

AFNM similar to Alt A.

-Bloody Basin Road Back 

Country Byway could 

improve access if 

designated.

-Wilderness impacts 

similar to Alt A.

-Constellation Mine Road 

Back Country Byway 

could improve access if 

designated but could 

-Impacts in the AFNM 

similar to Alt B except 

the 4 additional ACECs 

would close 1⁄2 mile of

route.

-In the BradshawHarquahala impacts 

would be similar to Alt B 

except additional ACECs 

would be designated. 

-Development of new 

routes in these ACECs 

-In the AFNM, no impacts 

from Back Country 

Byway and Riparian 

ACEC impacts would be 

similar to WSR 

management.

-In the BradshawHarquahala impacts 

would be similar to Alt C 

except additional ACECs 

would be designated.

-The modeled route 

- In the AFNM, no 

impacts from Back 

Country Byway and 

ACECs as none are 

designated WSR impacts 

similar to Alt A.

-In the BradshawHarquahala impacts 

would be similar to Alt D 

except fewer ACECs 

would be designated.

-The modeled route 
397

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

-Access to the Harquahala 

Mountain Backcountry 

Byway would continue 

and associated 

management would 

benefit users.

increase conflicts with 

local residents.

-Tule Creek ACEC would 

have no impact on access 

as the fenced area is 

currently closed to 

motorized vehicles.

would be impacted.

-The impacts of ACECs 

on existing routes would 

be determined through the 

route evaluation and 

designation process.

system could close 723

miles of routes which 

would significantly 

impact travel and access. 

-Nominating the Black 

Canyon Trail as National 

Recreation Trail could 

improve access in the 

area. 

system could close 211

miles of routes which 

would significantly 

impact travel and access. 

-Impacts of Black Canyon 

Trail similar to Alt D.

4.20.2 From Lands and 

Realty

Authorizations would 

expand the travel 

network. Development of 

state and private lands 

could lead to the 

disruption or loss of 

public access. 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.20.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Actions to protect or 

mitigating damage to soil, 

water and air resources 

could diminish the 

motorized route network. 

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except BLM would take 

direct action to reduce 

impacts on soil, water and 

air resources. 

-BLM would designate 

routes, reduce dust, reroute or close problem 

routes, apply buffer 

zones, SRMA 

prescriptions, and 

improve existing routes to 

reduce impacts.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.20.4 From Biological 

Resources Management

No impacts are expected. -Transportation routes 

and public access could 

be reduced to resolve

conflicts in WHAs and 

tortoise habitat through 

the route 

evaluation/designation 

-In the AFNM, route 

closures for riparian 

protection 3.54 miles.

-Pronghorn management 

a factor in route 

restrictions.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

-In AFNM impacts similar 

to Alt C.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts similar to Alt C 

except 18,020 acres in 

WHAs.

- In AFNM impacts 

similar to Alt C.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts similar to Alt C 

except 179,640 acres in 

WHAs.
398

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

process.

-WHA 64,220 acres.

-New routes could be 

restricted.

-Vehicle use on routes 

that remain open could 

increase.

-Route connectivity 

secondary to wildlife 

habitat in WHAs.

except 156,120 acres 

WHAs in BradshawHarquahala and 39,330 

acres in the AFNM.

4.20.5 From Cultural 

Resources Management

-A few specific vehicle 

travel routes could be 

closed to protect cultural 

sites or mitigate damage, 

but this would have little 

overall impact.

-In the AFNM, some 

routes would be closed 

for cultural site 

protection. 

-Route connectivity could 

be diminished and the 

quality of vehicle-based 

recreation pursuits would 

decline.

- In BradshawHarquahala impacts could 

include some restrictions 

to protect sites.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. 

4.20.6 From 

Paleontological Resource 

Management

No impacts on expected. No impacts on expected. No impacts on expected. No impacts on expected. No impacts on expected.

4.20.7 From Recreation 

Resource Management

-In the AFNM, no 

impacts are expected. 

Most routes remain open.

-SRP route use would 

mostly be displaced.

-In BradshawHarquahala, 2,240 miles 

of vehicle routes would 

remain open. In some 

areas, route mileage 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt A, shooting 

restrictions may reduce or 

displace use. 

-37 miles of existing 

routes would be closed.

-134 miles remain open.

-5 miles of new routes. 

-Users of these routes 

would be displaced to 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except:

-48 miles closed.

-123 miles remain open.

-6 miles of new routes.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

based on route model

-382 miles closed

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except:

-123 miles closed.

-48 miles remain open.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

based on route model

-723 miles closed

-1,645 miles remain open

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except:

-52 miles closed.

-94 miles remain open.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

based on route model

-211 miles closed.

-2,028 miles remain open
399

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

would increase over the 

long-term. 

other areas.

-Recreational 

opportunities for 

motorized users would be 

enhanced by creating loop 

trails. 

-In BradshawHarquahala, based on 

route model, 

169 miles of existing 

routes would be closed.

-14 miles of new routes 

-Total distance of open 

routes would be 2,086

miles. 

-Overall effect would be 

to maintain existing 

settings and opportunities. 

-Limiting vehicles to 

inventoried routes before 

completing the route 

designation process 

would eliminate crosscountry OHV travel and 

prevent development of 

new routes.

-1,889 miles remain open

-26 miles of new routes

-Traditional users could 

be displaced and 

recreation opportunities 

diminished.

-62 miles of new routes

-Traditional users could 

be displaced and 

recreation opportunities 

diminished.

-Route networks would be 

disconnected.

-39 miles of new routes.

-Non-motorized routes 

would be expanded.

-Once completed, the 

Black Canyon Trail from 

the Carefree Highway to 

north of Highway 69 

would become a major 

trail.

-Managing the North 

Black Canyon Trail RMZ 

would enhance the nonmotorized recreation.

-Impacts of limiting 

vehicles to inventoried 

routes before completion 

of the route designation 

process would be similar 

to Alt B.

4.20.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. -Designation of VRM I 

and II classes could affect 

route construction or 

cause re-alignment of 

existing routes. Class I 

designation would allow 

few motorized routes. 

Non-motorized routes 

would be easier to install.

-Installation of new travel 

routes within Class III 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
400

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

and IV VRM class areas 

enable development of 

access.

4.20.9 From Rangeland 

Management

-Impacts would be 

minimal.

-New developments could 

increase access. 

-Vandalism to livestock 

facilities from visitors 

could potentially lead to 

closure of routes.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. The elimination of grazing 

could lead to route 

deterioration.

Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.20.10 From Minerals 

Management

-No impacts in AFNM.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

new actions may increase 

public access if routes are 

made available for public 

use. 

-New mining routes could 

displace traditional trail 

users. 

-Closure of mining could 

eventually contribute to 

the loss of public access 

when routes are 

reclaimed.

-Existing routes may be 

closed if active mining 

operations pose a threat to 

public health or safety.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.20.11 From Fire 

Management

Some routes could be 

closed on a temporary 

basis due to fire 

suppression or controlled 

burns. 

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.20.12 From Wild Horse No impact is expected. No impact is expected. No impact is expected. No impact is expected. No impact is expected.
401

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

and Burro Management

4.20.13 From 

Management of Travel 

Management

-The AFNM is closed to 

cross-country motorized 

travel, but existing routes 

are open. No impacts are 

likely to occur.

-In BradshawHarquahala, 2,240 miles 

of vehicle routes would 

remain open, and 

access would not be 

affected.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt A, 

-37 miles of existing 

routes would be closed.

-134 miles remain open.

-5 miles of new routes. 

-Users of these routes 

would be displaced to 

other areas.

-Recreational 

opportunities for 

motorized users would be 

enhanced by creating loop 

trails. 

-In BradshawHarquahala, based on 

route model, 

169 miles of existing 

routes would be closed.

-14 miles of new routes 

-Total distance of open 

routes would be 2,086

miles. 

-Overall effect would be 

to maintain existing 

settings and opportunities. 

-Limiting vehicles to 

inventoried routes before 

completing the route 

designation process 

would eliminate crosscountry OHV travel and 

prevent development of 

new routes. 

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except:

-48 miles closed.

-123 miles remain open.

-6 miles of new routes.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

based on route model

-382 miles closed

-1,889 miles remain open

-26 miles of new routes

-Traditional users could 

be displaced and 

recreation opportunities 

diminished.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except:

-123 miles closed.

-48 miles remain open.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

based on route model

-723 miles closed

-1,645 miles remain open

-62 miles of new routes

-Traditional users could 

be displaced and 

recreation opportunities 

diminished.

-Route networks would be 

disconnected.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except:

-52 miles closed.

-94 miles remain open.

-In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

impacts similar to Alt B, 

except:

based on route model

-211 miles closed.

-2,028 miles remain open

-39 miles of new routes.

-Non-motorized routes 

would be expanded.

-Once completed, the 

Black Canyon Trail from 

the Carefree Highway to 

north of Highway 69 

would become a major 

trail.

-Managing the North 

Black Canyon Trail RMZ 

would enhance the nonmotorized recreation.

-Impacts of limiting 

vehicles to inventoried 

routes before completion 

of the route designation 

process would be similar 

to Alt B.
402

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

4.20.14 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

No impacts are expected. -In the AFNM no 

impacts.

-In the BradshawHarquahala maintenance 

of wilderness character 

would be a consideration 

in the route evaluation 

and designation process.

-New routes would be 

limited or precluded on 

56,040 acres in areas 

managed for wilderness 

character.

-In both areas, impacts 

similar to Alt B, except 

107,843 acres are 

allocated for wilderness 

character in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

area.

- In both areas, impacts 

similar to Alts B and C, 

except 102,664 acres are 

allocated for wilderness 

character in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

area and 37,571 acres 

within the Agua Fria 

National Monument.

-In the AFNM, 20,900 

acres allocated for 

wilderness character.

-New route construction 

precluded in this area but 

designated routes would 

be open.

-In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

similar to Alt B except 

68,970 acres allocated for 

wilderness character.

4.21 Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics

4.21.1 From Special Area 

Designations

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. Impacts similar to Alt A 

except ACEC and WSR 

management would 

conserve wilderness 

characteristics.

Impacts similar to Alt C. Impacts similar to Alt C.

4.21.2 From Lands and 

Realty

No impacts are expected. -Rights-of-ways, utility 

lines and communication 

sites could impact natural 

conditions and solitude.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.21.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

No impacts are expected. Management actions to 

maintain or enhance 

water, soil, and air quality 

would help maintain 

wilderness characteristics.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.21.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. Habitat improvements 

could impact natural 

conditions and solitude.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.

4.21.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

No impacts are expected. -Route closures to protect 

cultural sites could 

benefit wilderness 

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
403

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

characteristics by 

reducing public access 

and increasing solitude.

-Development of sites for 

public use would allow 

concentrations of users in 

certain areas, while 

limiting development 

would preserve the 

natural setting of places 

with wilderness 

characteristics.

4.21.6 From 

Paleontological 

Resources

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.21.7 From Recreation 

Resource Management

Increasing intensity of 

recreation could result in 

a loss of solitude. 

-Increasing numbers of 

non-motorized users 

could impair solitude 

opportunities and 

contribute to trailing and 

campsite use impacts.

- Increased number of 

SRPs could lead to 

increased numbers of 

users and conflicts, 

deteriorating 

opportunities to 

experience solitude and 

wilderness characteristics.

-Designating RMZs could 

benefit wilderness 

characteristics through 

management of more 

intensive recreation uses.

-Opportunities for 

solitude would be 

maintained in the Back 

Country RMZ.

-Reduction in lands 

available for competitive 

OHV events would 

maintain opportunities to 

experience more natural 

settings.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except that a larger Back 

Country RMZ, and fewer 

SRPs would offer more 

solitude opportunities and 

maintain more wilderness 

characteristics.

-Impacts similar to Alt C, 

except for more Back 

Country RMZ acreage, 

and fewer

SRPs.

-Impacts similar to Alt B, 

although restrictions on 

SRPs would more closely 

resemble Alt C.

4.21.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

The application of VRM 

Class III standards may 

eventually lead to some 

intrusions in to the visual 

-Management of lands to 

VRM Class II would 

retain the current physical 

setting of 96,150 acres 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except 486,800 acres 

would be managed to 

VRM Class II, 284,720 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except 502,610 acres 

would be managed to 

VRM Class II, 260,020

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except 340,880 acres 

would be managed to 

VRM Class II, 220,790
404

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

landscape in or around 

lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics.

and enhance primitive 

recreational experiences 

and opportunities for 

solitude. 

-Design criteria would 

maintain the area with 

little to no visual impacts 

and would retain 

naturalness.

acres to VRM Class III, 

and 98,660 to VRM Class 

IV.

acres to VRM Class III, 

and 94,800 to VRM Class 

IV.

acres to VRM Class III, 

and 107,020 to VRM 

Class IV.

4.21.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Impacts would be 

minimal. Site specific 

water projects, fencing, or 

vegetation projects may 

impact small areas but 

impacts would be 

consistent with the 

management of 

wilderness characteristics.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. No expected impacts. Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.21.10 From Minerals 

Management

-No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM. 

-In BradshawHarquahala, wilderness 

characteristics could be 

impaired, decline or be 

foregone within areas not 

afforded protection of 

their wilderness 

characteristics.

Closing the allocation to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics to mineral 

material disposal would 

reduce the potential for 

ground disturbance and 

maintain primitive open 

space.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except wilderness 

characteristics would also 

be closed to mineral and 

geothermal leasing and 

mineral entry. This would 

further maintain primitive 

open space.

Impacts similar to Alt A.

4.21.11 From Fire 

Management

No impacts are expected No impacts are expected No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.21.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

No impacts are expected No impacts are expected No impacts are expected No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.21.13 From 

Management of Travel 

-No impacts are expected 

in the AFNM.

Adverse impacts on 

wilderness characteristics 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except adverse impacts 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except adverse impacts on 

Impacts similar to Alt C. 
405

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

Management -In Bradshaw-Harquahala 

road and route 

development, access 

rights-of-way and other 

developments requiring 

roads could adversely 

affect wilderness 

characteristics. 

would be of a lesser scale 

than described under Alt 

A.

would be of a lesser 

degree than described 

under Alt A or B.

wilderness characteristics 

would be considerably 

less than described under 

Alt A, B or C.

4.21.14 From 

Management of 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

-In the AFNM, primitive 

or semi-primitive nonmotorized settings would 

likely be maintained due 

to the management 

guidelines set forth in the 

AFNM Proclamation.

-Wilderness 

characteristics could be 

impaired, decline or be 

foregone within 

Bradshaw-Harquahala in 

areas not afforded 

protection of their 

wilderness 

characteristics.

-In the AFNM, impacts 

would be similar to Alt A.

Allocation of wilderness 

characteristics would 

allow individuals to 

recreate in a more natural 

and remote setting.

-Wilderness 

characteristics would be 

maintained in areas with 

management for WSR 

suitable segments, and 

ACECs. In more 

accessible unprotected 

areas wilderness character 

could be impaired.

More acres of wilderness 

characteristics would be 

maintained than under Alt 

B as additional lands are 

allocated. Loss of 

wilderness characteristics 

would be minimal under 

Alt C.

Impacts similar to Alt C, 

except fewer acres would 

be managed to maintain 

wilderness characteristics. 

This alternative would 

designate some of the 

areas described under Alt 

B and C as ONA ACECs.

Non-motorized, primitive 

recreation users would 

benefit more than under 

Alt B, but less than under 

Alt C and D. 

4.22 Impacts on Social and Economic Conditions

4.22.1 Planning Area Growth and Development

Recreation Related 

Impacts

-Designation of the 

AFNM would likely 

result in increased visitor 

use. Activities that might 

be less available in the 

AFNM might place 

greater demands on 

surrounding lands.

-Use of land in the 

Impacts would be similar 

to Alt A, but development 

of recreation facilities 

would be encouraged to 

improve recreational 

experiences, resulting in 

increase visitation and 

use.

-Protection of biological 

-Primitive recreation 

would be favored in the 

AFNM. The number of 

commercial and 

guide/outfitter permits 

would be about half of 

those than under Alt B.

Public access to cultural 

resources would also be 

-The emphasis on nonmotorized recreation 

would reduce visitation 

more than any other 

alternative by closing the 

most vehicle routes. No 

motorized competitive 

races would be 

authorized.

-Primitive recreation 

would be favored in the 

AFNM, but overall access 

would be greater than Alt 

D. Total visitation and 

related expenditures are 

expected to be less than 

Alt A, B, or C..

-Access in Bradshaw-
406

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

planning areas would 

continue to increase as 

the population increases.

Visitation is expected to 

increase 55% by 2025.

-Growth and a 

continuation of current 

access would yield 

economic benefit to local 

communities that provide 

services compatible with 

recreation. 

-Access for OHV users 

and equestrians would 

continue to benefit the 

economy.

In the long term, as 

recreation continues to 

increase, resource 

conditions could 

deteriorate thereby 

increasing the need for 

more management.

and cultural resources 

would enhance the quality 

of experiences and 

increase visitation.

-2,220 miles of routes 

would be designated. The 

allocation of nine SRMAs 

and eight SCRMAs 

would increase visitor 

use.

-One WHA and two areas 

proposed for lands 

allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

would attract visitors 

seeking more primitive 

experiences. 

-Designation of Bloody 

Basin and Constellation 

Mine Roads as Back 

Country Byways could 

increase visitation. 

-Overall, recreation 

demand would increase 

more than in the other 

alternatives resulting in 

increased overall 

spending by recreationists 

in nearby communities. 

-The long term impacts of 

recreational use would be 

the same as Alt A.

more limited.

-Public access in 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

would also be more 

restrictive than Alt A or 

B. Biological and 

cultural resources would 

be more protected. 

Visitation and visitor 

spending would be 

reduced. Economic 

benefits to local 

communities would be 

less for this Alt than for 

Alt A or B but greater 

than Alt D.

-Designation of Bloody 

Basin Road and 

Constellation Mine Road 

would have impacts as 

similar to Alt B.

-2,012 miles of routes 

would be designated.

SCRMAs would be 

reduced to four, lands 

allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

would increase, and 11 

ACECs would be 

designated, which would 

likely reduce visitation, 

although some 

communities would 

continue to benefit from 

providing services to 

recreationists. 

-The long term impacts of 

-Public access to cultural 

resources would be more 

limited than any other 

alternative. Visitation and 

OHV use would decline, 

resulting in somewhat 

lower visitor spending.

-If this loss is offset by 

increased non-motorized 

recreation, the difference 

between the impacts of 

Alt D and the other 

alternatives would not be 

so great.

-1,639 miles of routes 

would be designated and 

use of trails would be 

limited. SCRMAs would 

be reduced to two, the 

number of areas allocated 

to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would 

increase to six, and eight 

ACECs would be 

designated. Visitation and 

related spending would 

likely decline, although 

some communities would 

continue to benefit.

-The overall economic 

impacts from motorized 

recreation would be 

slightly less than Alt C 

due to fewer available 

routes and concentrated 

use areas.

Harquahala would be 

more limited than Alt B, 

but less than C. 

-Designated vehicle 

routes (2,122 miles) are 

expected accommodate 

use at current levels. 

-OHV impacts would 

continue similar to those 

described in Alt A and B.

-Increased opportunities 

for non-motorized 

recreation may increase 

overall visitation, but this 

is unlikely to greatly 

increase spending.

-Allocating SRMAs to 

more intensive recreation 

could attract more users.

Use is expected to 

increase along with user 

satisfaction. Overall, the 

economic benefits of 

recreation are expected to 

be lower than under Alt 

A, B, and C, but greater 

than under Alt D.

-Six SCRMAs would 

contain sites allocated to 

public use, which would 

have impacts similar to 

Alt B. The increase in 

areas allocated to

maintain wilderness 

characteristics and 

designation of 4 ACECs 

would provide non-
407

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

recreational use would be 

the same as Alt A.

motorized opportunities. 

-Bloody Basin Road and 

Constellation Mine Road 

would not be considered 

as back country byways 

thus impacts would be the 

same as Alt A.

-The long term impacts of 

recreational use would be 

similar to Alt A, except 

that management actions 

should result in 

sustainable conditions.

Ranching, Agriculture, 

and Livestock 

Production-Related 

Impacts

-Increases in population 

and urbanization have 

resulted in loss of 

agricultural land and 

increased conflicts with 

farm and ranch 

operations.

-Livestock production on 

BLM land contributes to 

the local economy.

Prohibiting grazing in the 

Larry Canyon ACEC has 

minimal impact on 

production and the 

economic impacts would 

not change.

-Impacts are expected to 

be the similar to Alt A 

except that grazing in 

riparian areas would be 

limited to winter. Grazing 

would likely decline but 

would not measurably 

differ from current 

livestock management.

Should allocating 

eight SCRMAs result in 

restricting grazing, 

livestock production may 

decrease.

-Impacts are expected to 

be the similar to Alt B 

except livestock grazing 

is prohibit in riparian 

areas, which would 

reduce the number of 

allotments to 43. This 

may eliminate or reduce 

some allotments to the 

point that ranches would 

no longer be viable. 

-Impacts on the regional 

economy would be 

minimal. 

-Closing BLM-managed 

lands to grazing would 

significantly affect 

holders of grazing leases, 

local economies, and 

reduce livestock 

production in the state.

-Impacts would be the 

similar to Alt B, except 

six SCRMAs would be 

allocated which might 

result in fencing some 

areas from grazing use. 

Minerals-Related Impacts

Locatable Minerals -The AFNM is closed to 

all forms of mineral entry.

-Bradshaw-Harquahala 

would generally be left 

open to mineral location 

and development. Should 

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except Alt B would be the 

most encouraging to 

mineral development. 

-Tule Creek ACEC would 

be closed to mineral 

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except for the closure of 3 

ACECs and riparian 

areas. This could result

in some economic 

limitations. 

-This alternative would 

tend to more or less 

eliminate mining via 

attrition over the duration 

of the plan. It would also 

reduce mining-related 

Impacts similar to Alt B, 

except fewer acres would 

be allocated to VRM 

Classes II and IV, and 

more acres would be 

allocated to VRM Class 
408

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

prices reach a high 

enough level to begin 

exploration or reopen 

mines, there would be a 

positive economic impact 

in mining employment 

and earnings. 

-Recreational prospecting 

for gold has resulted in 

the formation of 

numerous prospecting 

clubs that hold mining 

claims. Businesses have 

begun to cater to their 

needs and support their 

social structure. Current 

access would allow 

continued use by these 

groups, and the

possibility of expansion 

to new areas.

location and 

development.

-VRM standards may 

increase costs of mining 

by requiring rehabilitation 

standards. Increased 

rehabilitation may result 

in economic benefits if 

local labor and/or 

material are used.

-Casual use miners and 

prospecting clubs could 

continue with their 

activities, except route 

closures may make it 

difficult or expensive to 

maintain access to claims.

-Impacts from VRM 

would increase compared 

to Alt B, but be less than 

those under Alt D.

additions to the local and 

regional economies, 

thereby limiting economic 

opportunity more than the 

other alternatives.

-Impacts similar to Alt C, 

but more acreage would 

be closed to mining, and 

more areas would be 

classified as VRM I and 

II. 

III. Re-conveyed lands, 

mainly in the Black 

Canyon area between 

Black Canyon City and 

Bumblebee, would be 

closed to mineral location 

and development along 

with Tule Creek ACEC. 

Saleable Minerals Continued sale of mineral 

materials would 

contribute to local 

economies. BLM would 

continue to issue free use 

permits to the state and to 

local communities as the 

need arises. The result 

would be the continued 

availability of materials. 

Impact of mineral 

material sales is expected 

to be slight.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except Tule Creek ACEC 

and two areas allocated to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be 

closed to mineral material 

sales. This would 

somewhat reduce the 

opportunity to extract 

those commodities, but 

the impact is expected to 

be negligible. 

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except ACECs and areas 

allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics 

would be closed to 

mineral material sales. 

These areas would be 

larger than in Alt A or B.

Impacts similar to Alt C, 

except more acres would 

be closed to mineral 

material sales. In the 

short term, demand is 

expected to be met by 

non-Federal and federal 

production. But future 

demand may not be met. 

Increased costs of 

importing building 

material would increase 

building costs in all parts 

of the economy.

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except Tule Creek ACEC 

and riparian areas would 

be closed to mineral 

material disposal. 

Impacts are expected to 

be minimal.

-VRM standards might 

affect mineral material 

and decorative rock 

mining.

Leasable Minerals No known viable sources Impacts similar to Alt A, Impacts similar to Alt A Impacts similar to Alt A Impacts similar to Alt B.
409

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

of leasable minerals exist 

within the planning area.

No measurable economic 

impacts are expected 

except in areas that might 

be explored north of the 

planning area but within 

the Phoenix District

boundary.

except Tule Creek ACEC 

would be closed to 

mineral leasing which 

would have a negligible 

impact.

except mineral leasing 

would be prohibited in 

four ACECs and on 

scattered lands outside the 

planning area.

except mineral leasing 

would be prohibited in a 

number of ACECs and 

lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness 

characteristics.

Lands and CorridorsRelated Impacts-Disposal of 54,370 acres 

of BLM land would 

contribute not be a 

significant growth 

inducing action.

-Development of 

disposed land would 

increase resource 

demands on remaining 

BLM land and could 

contribute to the loss of 

small, rural communities 

by increasing traffic and 

the need for more urban 

services. However, 

growth could also 

contribute to local 

economies.

-Maintaining current 

utility corridors would 

meet future demand.

- Jobs related with future 

utility development could 

contribute to local 

economies.

-Utility developments can 

have profound impacts on 

regional economic 

-Impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt A, 

except 58,400 acres 

would be available for 

disposal.

-The 58,400 acres would 

mainly affect the 

communities of Dewey, 

Humboldt, Mayer, and 

Goodyear for future 

potential development.

-This alternative 

considers two options for 

land disposal. Under 

Option 1, 600 acres 

would be available, and 

impacts would be similar 

to Alt D. In Option 2, 

49,100 acres would be 

available for disposal and 

impacts are expected to 

be similar to Alt A. 

-Impacts of the multi-use 

utility and transportation 

corridor that includes the 

Interstate 17 right-of-way 

would be similar to Alt A, 

except the corridor would 

be narrowed to move it 

out of the AFNM.

-No BLM land would be 

available for disposal. 

This would have no 

measurable impacts on 

potential growth or 

availability of land for 

development. Retaining 

all BLM land may 

contribute to maintaining 

rural lifestyles in some 

parts of the planning area.

-Reduction in the level of 

corridors would support 

continued growth but may 

somewhat constrain siting 

of potential utilities in the 

future.

-Impacts are expected to 

similar to Alt A, except 

38,755 acres would be 

available for disposal. 

This would mainly affect 

the communities of 

Buckeye, Goodyear, 

Wickenburg, and the 

greater Phoenix area.

-Impacts of utility and 

transportation corridors 

would also be similar to 

Alt A.
410

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

sustainability but is often 

controversial to local 

communities.

4.23 Environmental Justice

Impacts to Minority and 

Low Income Populations

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected.

4.24 Cumulative Impacts

Population Growth and 

Development

-Potential effects of 

growth include the loss of 

ranching/related western 

lifestyle, and change in 

social leadership resulting 

from increases in urban 

values.

-Growth would result in 

economic changes.

54,370 acres of BLM land 

would be available for 

disposal by sale or 

exchange, but this is not 

expected to be a 

significant growthinducing action and so 

there would be no 

measurable cumulative 

impact. However, growth 

would continue to impact 

resources on BLM land.

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

but 58,400 acres would be 

available for disposal. 

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

but 49,100 acres would be 

available for disposal. 

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

even though BLM would 

make no land available for 

disposal. 

-Impacts similar to Alt A, 

but 38,755 acres would be 

available for disposal.

-The Black Canyon 

Utility Corridor under this 

alternative improves long 

term economic condition 

of central Arizona by 

accommodating more 

types of utilities.
411

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

-The reconstruction and 

widening of I-17 would 

facilitate growth of local 

communities as well as 

the State as a whole.

Recreation and Visitation -Impacts would include 

intensified use in certain 

areas, especially for 

motorized activities, as 

recreation increases and 

growth and development 

occur. General plans for 

the counties and 

communities include 

provisions for open space, 

which is likely to further 

concentrated motorized 

activities on BLM land.

-Increased visitation is 

expected to result in 

increased local spending 

for recreational goods and 

services. 

-The reconstruction and 

widening of I-17 could 

enhance or restrict access 

for recreation and likely 

have a negative visual 

impact on the surrounding 

areas.

Impacts are expected to 

increase over those in Alt 

A since visitation is 

expected to increase the 

most in this alternative. 

The trend toward nonmotorized recreation in 

urban areas would be 

similar to Alt A.

Impacts are expected to 

decrease as compared Alt 

A and B as this 

alternative favors 

primitive recreation and 

visitation would likely 

decline. The beneficial 

economic effects of 

recreation and visitation 

would be lower than 

under Alt A and B, but 

greater than under Alt D. 

Impacts are expected to 

decrease more than under 

Alt C, as this alternative 

would devote the most 

area to non-motorized

recreation and close more 

areas to vehicular access.

Visitation is expected to 

be the lowest and so 

cumulative affects would 

be least.

Primitive recreation 

would be favored in the 

AFNM and access would 

also be somewhat reduced 

in Bradshaw-Harquahala. 

Visitation and related 

expenditures are expected 

to be less than Alt A and 

B, but more than C or 

D. 

Air Quality Cumulative air quality 

impacts have been 

addressed by air quality 

non-attainment plans and 

maintenance plans 

prepared by MAG and 

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

except the miles of trails 

open to recreation would 

decrease by 3%. Air 

quality impacts on the 

region would be minimal.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

even though miles of 

trails open to recreation 

would decrease by 4%. 

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

although OHV emissions 

and particulates in rural 

areas would possibly be 

less, given more 

restrictions on areas open 

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

although miles of trails 

open to recreation would 

decline.
412

 

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Proposed Alternative)

ADEQ. -It is possible that 

increased OHV use would 

cause increased fugitive 

dust impacts immediately 

near the roads and trails. 

But future OHV 

emissions would probably 

decline and contribute a 

proportionately smaller 

fraction of emissions.

to OHV use and

competitive events.

Soils Cumulative effects are 

generally limited to a site. 

Management practices 

have led to some 

detrimental conditions.

Development may 

compact and displace soil 

and remove vegetation. 

Soil productivity in these 

areas is lost for all 

practical purposes.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts are expected to be 

the least of all 

Alternatives given that 

recreation and mining 

would be more restricted 

and grazing would be 

prohibited.

Impacts are expected to 

be less than Alts A or B, 

but more than C or D 

given that motorized 

recreation would be more 

restricted and fewer acres 

would be available for 

disposal and eventual 

development.

Water Resources Many watercourses in 

central Arizona have been 

degraded by increased 

sediment load due to 

urbanization, livestock 

grazing, and recreation as 

well as leachate from 

mining. Under this Alt, 

these activities would 

continue.

Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts similar to Alt A. Impacts are expected to be 

less than those under other 

alternatives, given that 

recreation and mining 

would be more restricted 

and grazing would be 

prohibited.

Impacts are expected to 

be less than Alts A or B, 

but more than C and or D 

given that motorized 

recreation would be more 

restricted and fewer acres 

would be available for 

disposal and eventual 

development.

Wild Horse and Burro 

Management

No noticeable cumulative 

affects are expected.

Impacts similar to Alt A, 

even though the 

Harquahala HA would 

not be a managed herd.

Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B. Impacts similar to Alt B.
Chapter 3

Chapter Three
Chapter 3

412
Chapter 3

413

Chapter 3 - 

Affected 

Environment 

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the environmental 

components of BLM-administered Federal lands 

within the planning areas that would potentially 

be affected by implementation of the proposed 

RMPs/EIS. These environmental components 

include lands, vegetation, wildlife habitat, 

cultural and paleontological resources, 

recreation, wilderness, rangeland, minerals, 

visual resources, wild horses and burros, soils, 

water, air quality, and socioeconomics. The data 

contained within this chapter is drawn from the 

Management Situation Analysis (BLM PFO 

2003), and detailed resource assessments 

completed for each of the environmental 

components occurring within the planning area.

The detailed resource assessments and the 

Management Situation Analysis are available for 

public review at the BLM's Phoenix District.

3.2 Special Area 

Designations

3.2.1 Introduction

Special Area Designations describe areas which 

have special values that warrant or require 

special management or protection. These areas, 

which are specifically addressed through this 

planning process, include Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC), Scenic and 

Back Country Byways, Wilderness Areas 

(WAs), and areas designated as part of the Wild 

and Scenic River System.

3.2.2 Wilderness Areas

Five congressionally designated wilderness 

areas administered by BLM are located within 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

including the Big Horn Mountains Wilderness, 

Harquahala Mountains Wilderness, Hassayampa 

River Canyon Wilderness, Hells Canyon 

Wilderness, and Hummingbird Springs 

Wilderness (Map 1-1). Castle Creek Wilderness, 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service, is 

located next to BLM-managed lands in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. Agua 

Fria National Monument does not have 

designated wilderness. BLM-managed 

wilderness totals 96,820 acres within the 

planning areas.

3.2.3 Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern 

(ACECs)

ACECs are areas where unique resources exist, 

making them worthy of a higher level of concern 

and protection. A designation of an ACEC on 

BLM-managed lands requires approval by the 

Arizona State Director, who can also remove the 

designation. Once an ACEC is designated, the 

focus of management is to preserve and restore 

the resources that inspired the recommendation 

for designation.

There are two ACECs located within the Agua 

Fria National Monument. The first is the Perry 

Mesa ACEC, encompassing 9,580 acres, which 

was designated in 1988 to protect its significant 

cultural resources, and the second is the Larry 

Canyon ACEC, totaling 80 acres, which was 

designated in 1988 to protect its unique riparianforest/desert ecosystem habitat. Currently, the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area does not 

have ACECs.
 

Chapter 3

414

3.2.4 Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

BLM is an active participant in managing 

designated wild, scenic, and recreational 

rivers. It is also involved in studying the 

eligibility, classification, and suitability of 

rivers. Presently, there are not any officially 

designated wild and scenic rivers flowing 

within either planning area. Portions of the 

Agua Fria River were identified in the 

1994 Arizona Statewide Wild & Scenic 

Rivers Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement (BLM 1994b) as being suitable 

for designation. More specifically, in the 

Final Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement for Wild and Scenic Rivers (BLM 

1994), the Agua Fria River was found to 

have outstandingly remarkable values for its 

scenic characteristics, fish and wildlife 

habitat, and cultural resources. The scenic 

value reflects the topographic diversity and 

ancient volcanic activity of the area. Mesas 

and grasslands border a lush riparian valley 

surrounded by cliffs. The fish and wildlife 

habitat is representative of a rare riparian 

system that supports wildlife populations in 

the desert. The value of the landforms and 

habitat contributed to the development of

one of the most important systems of late 

prehistoric archaeological sites in central 

Arizona. While awaiting congressional 

determination of designation, BLM is 

managing these river portions under the 

1968 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

and according to guidance in BLM's Manual 

8351, Section 53.

According to the Agua Fria River Wild and 

Scenic River Study Area EIS (BLM 1994a),

three river segments totaling 22.4 miles 

qualify for designation as either wild, scenic, 

or recreational depending on the segment 

characteristics see (Table 3-1).

Additionally, portions of the Hassayampa 

River were identified suitable for further 

study in the wild and scenic river evaluation 

process. However, in the Proposed 

Alternative developed in the 1994 Arizona 

Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Legislative EIS, BLM determined after 

further study that the Hassayampa River was 

not suitable. Therefore, BLM did not 

recommend the river to Congress for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

River System (WSR).

3.2.5 Back Country 

Byways

Agua Fria National Monument does not 

have designated Back Country Byways. In 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area,

the Harquahala Mountain Summit Road 

Scenic Drive is designated a Back Country 

Byway. Located 40 miles west of 

Wickenburg, it includes 10.5 miles of 

dirt vehicle route leading from Eagle Eye 

Road to the Harquahala Peak Observatory.

3.3 Lands and 

Realty

3.3.1 Land Tenure 

BLM is authorized under several authorities 

to acquire, dispose of, convey, and lease 

Table 3-1. Special Area Designations: Wild 

and Scenic Rivers

River/

Classification 

Eligibility

Distance Location

Agua Fria 

River/Scenic

7.7 miles Sycamore Creek to the 

juncture of Bloody Basin 

Road at Horseshoe 

Ranch.

Agua Fria 

River/Wild

10.3 

miles

Horseshoe Ranch to the 

Arizona Department of 

Transportation pump 

house.

Agua Fria 

River/Scenic

4.4 miles Segment between pump 

house to Larry Canyon.
 

Chapter 3

415

portions of the federally owned land it 

manages for the benefit of the national 

interest. Land tenure decisions select lands 

for retention, proposed disposal, acquisition, 

or lease. The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) requires that 

BLM-managed lands be retained in Federal 

ownership unless BLM determines through 

the land use planning process that 

conveyance of a particular parcel will serve

the national interest (43 USC 1701). Land 

tenure decisions must achieve the goals, 

standards, and objectives outlined in the 

land use plan. Land tenure options include 

the following: 

land purchase, 

land exchange, 

land conveyance by public sale, and

land patents and leases under the 

1954 Recreation and Public 

Purposes (R&PP) Act. 

Land ownership in the planning area is a 

complex mosaic of Federal, State, and 

private lands. As shown in Table 3-2, BLM, 

the Arizona State Land Department 

(ASLD) and private owners each 

administer about one-third of the area.

3.3.2 Agua Fria National 

Monument (AFNM)

Agua Fria National Monument is located in 

Yavapai County, in central Arizona, 40 

miles north of Phoenix. The 70,900 acres of 

Federal land consist of Perry Mesa and 

Black Mesa, the public land to the north of 

these mesas, and the Agua Fria River 

Canyon.

The national monument has 1,444 acres of 

scattered private lands within its boundary.

In addition to recreation and hunting, the 

most common uses for these lands are 

ranching and mining. 

As a requirement of the January 2000 

Monument Proclamation (Appendix A), all 

Federal lands and interests in lands within 

the monument are appropriated and 

withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, 

selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition 

under the public land laws. This protection 

furthers the purposes of the monument.

Although existing withdrawals, reservations, 

or appropriations are not revoked within the 

monument, Federal lands may not be 

disposed of. Lands and interests in lands 

within the monument that are not owned by 

the United States shall be reserved as a part 

of the monument upon acquisition of title 

thereto by the United States.

Table 3-2. Details of Land Ownership within the Planning Area

Surface Management Agua Fria National 

Monument

BradshawHarquahalaTotal Acreage Percentage of 

total (%)

Federal

Bureau of Land Management 70,900 896,100 967,000 30%

National Forest Land 0 308,300 308,300 10%

Bureau of Reclamation 0 2,670 2,670 <1%

Subtotal 70,900 1,207,070 1,277,970 41%

State and County

Arizona State Land Department 

(ASLD)

0 863,450 863,450 28%

State and County Parks 0 52,770 52,770 2%

County Lands 0 2,220 2,220 <1%

Subtotal 0 918,440 918,440 30%

Tribal Lands 0 450 450 <1%

Private Lands 1444 841,366 842,810 28%

Total 72,344 2,967,326 3,039,670 100%
 

Chapter 3

416

3.3.3 BradshawHarquahala Planning 

Area

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area is 

located within Maricopa, Yavapai, and La 

Paz Counties. It includes portions of the 

Phoenix metropolitan area, the fourteenth 

largest and one of the fastest growing 

metropolitan areas in the United States.

This planning area also includes the 

following:

The cities of Glendale, Peoria, 

Surprise, El Mirage, and Litchfield 

Park; portions of the cities of

Phoenix, Prescott, Avondale, and 

Goodyear; portions of the towns of 

Buckeye and Prescott Valley. 

The unincorporated communities of 

Sun City, Sun City West, Sun City 

Grand, Black Canyon City, Castle 

Hot Springs, Cordes Junction, 

Mayer, Humboldt, Dewey, 

Morristown, Congress, Yarnell, and 

Aguila; and portions of the 

unincorporated communities of New 

River and Tonopah. 

BLM issues permits in response to requests 

for public-use easements or rights-of-way 

across the planning area. These easements 

are generally confined to clearly identified 

corridors. Corridors may be used for 

highways, railroads, and utilities including 

electric, gas, water and communications.

Information on corridors appears in the 

Utility and Communications Corridors 

section of this chapter (Table 3-3).

 

In some cases land ownership is separated into 

(1) surface interests and (2) subsurface or 

mineral estate interests. BLM 

administers 945,160 acres of mineral estate

within the planning areas. Where one party 

owns the surface estate and another owns the 

mineral estate, the land is termed "split estate."

A total of 54,370 acres within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area have been 

determined to be suitable for disposal. More 

than 100,000 acres in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area— mainly State and 

privately owned lands—have been determined 

to be potentially suitable for acquisition.

BLM has acquired some lands since the 

adoption of the previous plans. The most 

commonly employed criterion for acquisition 

continues to be to create contiguous blocks of 

federally managed lands.

3.3.4 Utility and 

Communications 

Corridors 

BLM easement procedures, including 

corridor designation, are set out in the BLM 

Rights-of-Way Manual, Sections 2801.11 

and 2801.12. FLPMA and this manual are 

consistent in saying that designated utility 

corridors should include existing facilities 

that would lend themselves to a corridor 

designation. Once corridors have been 

designated, all future assigned uses should 

be compatible with existing uses. The eight 

major designated corridors within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

are listed in Table 3-3 and shown in Map 2-

Table 3-3. Existing Utility Corridors

Corridor 

Name

Width Current 

Utility/Transportation 

Uses

Black 

Canyon

2 miles Electricity, Gas

WickenburgYarnell1 mile Transportation

MeadePhoenix1 mile Electricity

ParkerLiberty2 

miles/varies

Electricity

Palo VerdeDevers1 mile Electricity

CAP Canal 1 mile Water

Palo VerdeWest Wing1 mile Electricity

WendenWickenburg1 mile Transportation
 

Chapter 3

417

7. Their widths and general-use categories 

are also shown in Table 3-3. A portion of 

the Black Canyon utility corridor runs 

parallel to Interstate 17 and edges into Agua 

Fria National Monument along its 

western boundary.

The existing corridors were designated in 

accordance with BLM's regulations in effect 

at the time of designation. While the 

corridor locations have not changed since 

they were shown in the Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan (BLM 1983) 

and the Phoenix RMP and EIS (BLM 

1988a), the regulatory framework and 

adjacent BLM's area designations have 

changed.

Each of the existing utility corridors, except 

Wickenburg–Yarnell, has at least 

one active right-of-way occupying its full 

length.

National monument status for the Agua Fria 

area dictates that no new utility corridors 

will be designated on monument lands.

Existing utilities as shown in Map 2-3, 

including the Black Canyon utility 

corridor, comply with regulations as prior 

existing uses.

The BLM's Rights-of-Way Manual, Section 

2801.12, states that microwave 

communication sites, associated pathways, 

and communication lines for interstate use 

are to be considered for designation as 

corridors. Some of the designated 

communication site corridors in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area existed when the manual went into 

effect. The nine communication sites within 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area are 

Lone Mountain, Harquahala Mountain, 

Burnt Mountain, Valencia, Black Canyon, 

and White Tank Mountain Park sites (North, 

Middle, East, and West). No 

communication sites are within the national 

monument.

3.3.5 Transportation 

Corridors

Transportation corridors are included as a 

part of the utility corridors in both planning 

areas. These corridors were first identified 

in the Phoenix RMP and EIS (BLM 1988a).

All of the information about existing utility 

corridors also applies to the transportation 

corridors. Designated corridors that contain 

highways and railroads are shown on Map 

2-7.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

the highway study corridor that appears in 

the Maricopa Association of Governments 

(MAG 2003) Long Range Transportation 

Plan 2003 Update (MAG 2002) is the 

CANAMEX Trade Corridor. The 

CANAMEX corridor, as defined by 

Congress in the 1995 National Highway 

Systems Designation Act, is a high-priority 

corridor. It follows Interstate 19 from 

Nogales to Tucson, I-10 from Tucson to 

Phoenix, U.S. 93 from near Phoenix to Las 

Vegas, and Interstate 15 from Las Vegas 

through Montana to the Canadian border.

A MAG resolution for designating the 

CANAMEX corridor through the Maricopa 

region included a recommendation for a 

portion of it to be ―an alignment in the 

general vicinity of Wickenburg Road and 

Vulture Mine Road that connects to the 

future U.S. 93/U.S. 60 Wickenburg Bypass, 

the specific alignment of which is to be 

determined following the completion of 

needed studies by ADOT; and the future 

U.S. 93/U.S. 60 Wickenburg bypass from its 

junction with Vulture Mine Road to U.S. 

93‖ (MAG 2002).

Railroads, particularly freight, are a key part 

of the transportation system within the 

planning areas. Rail is not considered a 

factor in designating more corridors 

because no new rail line locations are likely 

to be proposed in the foreseeable future.
 

Chapter 3

418

3.4 Soil, Air, and 

Water Resources

3.4.1 Soil Resources

Most of the planning areas are 

located within the Basin and Range 

Geologic Province. The northern sections 

fall within the Central Highlands. The 

basins generally consist of surficial and 

sedimentary deposits. The mountain 

ranges consist of granitoid and metamorphic 

rock. The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area includes several mountain ranges. The 

White Tank Mountains, Harquahala 

Mountains, and mountain ranges 

surrounding the town of Wickenburg are in 

the Basin and Range Province. The 

Bradshaw Mountains are within the Central 

Highlands region.

Geologic faults in central Arizona are 

generally short, discontinuous, normal faults 

that date back to the Quaternary Period, the 

last two million years. The Verde Fault, a 

potentially active fault, is located 25 miles 

northeast of Prescott near the town of 

Jerome. The only areas of concern for 

earthquake hazard within the planning areas 

are at the moderate to low level for the 

northern portions near Prescott. The 

remainder of the planning areas is in the low 

hazard level. The last known earthquake in 

the planning areas occurred near 

Constellation, Arizona in 1930.

Soil consists of mineral particles of different 

sizes, organic matter, and many species of 

living organisms. The planning areas 

contain a wide array of soil textures, 

including various types of cobble, gravel, 

clay, loam, silt, sand, and stone as shown 

in Map 3-1.

Soil texture in the monument is mainly clay 

loam. Small portions along the monument's 

southern boundary and the southern portion 

of the Agua Fria River are classified as 

very gravelly-sandy loam.

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

contains a more complex soil composition.

Southern portions consist of an assortment 

of gravelly-sandy loam textures. However, 

the Hummingbird Springs and Big Horn 

Mountains Wilderness Areas, and White 

Tank Mountain Regional Park, contain soil 

textures that are extremely stony-coarse, 

sandy loam. Areas, immediately 

surrounding these regions, have extremely 

gravelly-sandy loam. Additionally, the 

southeast corner of this planning area has 

one large parcel containing fine-sandy loam 

just west of the Agua Fria River. Soil on the 

eastern side of the Agua Fria is classified as 

loam.

3.4.2 Air Resources

The climate in central Maricopa, La Paz, 

and Yavapai Counties, including 

the planning areas is characteristic of the 

Sonoran Desert, with hot summers, mild 

winters, and annual average precipitation 

totals of about 8 inches (Map 3-2). From 

1960 to 1995, the long-term annual average 

rainfall was 7.99 inches, and the median 

rainfall was 7.62 inches (CH2M HILL et al. 

1997). 

Air quality is evaluated by 

measuring ambient concentrations of 

pollutants known to have deleterious 

effects. The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has issued primary and 

secondary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria 

pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10), 

ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead 

(Pb). Primary standards are adopted to 

protect public health, and secondary 

standards are adopted to protect public 

welfare. States are required to adopt 

ambient air quality standards that are at least 

as stringent as the Federal NAAQS. The 

Arizona Department of Environmental 
 

Chapter 3

419

Quality (ADEQ) regulates air quality in the

State and has adopted the Federal NAAQS 

as State standards. The Maricopa 

Association of Governments (MAG) was 

designated by the Governor as lead air 

quality planning agency for the Phoenix 

metropolitan area, and prepares air quality 

plans for nonattainment area pollutants.

EPA has designated several places within 

Arizona as nonattainment areas for criteria 

pollutants. Once an area has been 

designated as a nonattainment area, the 

State's implementation plan must be 

developed to show the measures that will be 

undertaken to reduce the pollutant levels to 

meet the air quality standards. Cumulative 

air quality impacts in the planning areas 

have been addressed by the air quality 

nonattainment plans and air quality 

maintenance plans that MAG and ADEQ 

have been required to prepare for approval 

by the EPA (MAG 2004; MAG 2003).

These plans are required because the 

Phoenix area is already a nonattainment area 

for several air pollutants and these plans are, 

in reality, quantitative cumulative air quality 

impact assessments. The general steps the 

agencies conduct for their air quality 

forecasting are as follows:

The counties in the region 

coordinate to predict future regional 

population and transportation 

growth. MAG assumes that all of 

BLM‘s parcels would be developed 

into residential areas at the same 

rate and intensity as all of the 

surrounding parcels, so MAG‘s 

forecasts accounts for the issue of 

―induced growth‖ by BLM's land 

disposal. 

ADEQ and Maricopa County 

develop regulations to reduce 

emissions from industry, while 

MAG (1) develops fugitive dust 

regulations for construction and 

commercial operations, (2) tracks 

trends in improved automobile 

emissions, and (3) prepares 

measures to reduce emissions from 

on-road and off-road engines.

Using this data, MAG forecasts 

future air pollutant emissions 

throughout the region, accounting 

for new ADEQ air regulations and 

vehicle emission trends. MAG then 

models future air pollutant 

concentrations to show that future 

air pollutant concentrations would 

be within allowable Federal limits.

Future population growth in the 

outlying areas of the planning area 

is built directly into MAG‘s air 

quality modeling. MAG‘s modeling 

(using EPA‘s Urban Airshed Model) 

for future photochemical smog 

revealed that the maximum 1-hour 

ozone concentration in 2015 would 

be less than the Federal limit of 

0.120 ppm at all points in the 

planning area (MAG 2004). 

Yavapai and La Paz counties are in 

attainment for all criteria pollutants and do 

not need a State Implementation Plan

(ADEQ 2002a). However, Maricopa 

County is considered a nonattainment area 

for three criteria pollutants, including 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and 

ozone. Criteria pollutant attainment status 

for the planning areas and sources of 

pollutants are described in the following 

sections.

3.4.2.1 Particulate Matter

On June 10, 1996, EPA reclassified 

Maricopa County as being in serious 

nonattainment for particulate matter (PM10).

Map 3-3, shows the current PM10

nonattainment area for the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. On July 8, 1999, the 

Maricopa Association of Governments 

(MAG) submitted to EPA the MAG 1999 

Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM10

(Executive Summary, MAG 1999). This 

plan addressed both the 24-hour and annual 

PM10 standards. In February 2000, MAG 

submitted a revised nonattainment plan.

That plan requested that EPA extend 
 

Chapter 3

420

Phoenix‘s PM10 attainment date to 

December 31, 2006. ADEQ submitted a SIP 

revision of the Agricultural PM10 General 

Permit (Arizona Administrative Code, Title 

18, Chapter 2, §609–611) on July 11, 2000.

On June 13, 2001, ADEQ submitted to 

EPA a later SIP revision package for the 

Agricultural Best Management Practices 

program (Maricopa County PM10 Serious 

Area State Implementation Plan Revision 

Agricultural Best Management Practices) to 

address issues with agricultural sources. On 

January 10, 2002, EPA announced the 

approval of Arizona‘s plan for attaining the 

annual and 24-hour standards for PM10 in 

the metropolitan Phoenix area. In addition, 

EPA granted a five-year extension of the 

required attainment date for both the 24-

hour and annual PM10 standards from 

December 31, 2001, to December 31, 2006.

This extension was based on the showing 

that, even by implementing the best 

available control measures, attainment by 

2001 was not possible (ADEQ 2002b).

Emission Sources: According to ADEQ 

(2002b), the main sources of particulate 

pollution in the Phoenix area are fugitive 

dust from:

paved roads, 

construction sites, 

unpaved vehicle routes, 

windblown dust from agricultural 

fields, 

disturbed areas on construction 

sites, 

vacant lots.

On June 10, 1996, EPA reclassified 

Maricopa County as being in serious 

nonattainment for carbon monoxide. Map 

3-4 shows the boundaries of the 

Phoenix carbon monoxide 

(CO) nonattainment area. MAG submitted 

the required CO SIP to EPA on July 8, 

1999. On April 18, 2001, MAG submitted 

A Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Carbon 

Monoxide Plan (Executive Summary, MAG 

1999). On October 9, 2001, EPA 

determined the plan was complete, and 

approval is pending (ADEQ 2002b). The 

plan sets forth the required actions to bring 

Phoenix into attainment with the Federal 

carbon monoxide standards by December 

31, 2005.

In September 2005, EPA received additional 

PM10 control measures from ADEQ for the 

Salt River SIP, a portion of the Phoenix 

nonattainment area. These measures, when 

approved by EPA, will apply in the entire 

Phoenix PM10 attainment area. The Phoenix 

area had a number of exceedances and 

violations of the PMN10 NAAQS in 

November and December 2005 and in 

January 2006. Based on this preliminary 

information (quality assured monitoring data 

will not be available until early April 2006), 

all indications are that Phoenix will not 

make its 12/31/2006 attainment date. This 

means that a CAA section 189(d) plan or 

―5% plan‖ will be due on 12/31/2007 and 

will need to show emissions reductions of 

5% per year until attainment of the PM10

standard can be shown. 

Emission Sources: The main sources of 

carbon monoxide (ADEQ 2002b) are 

on-road mobile sources, 

non-road mobile sources, and

area sources (e.g. fuel combustion, 

onsite incineration, open burning, 

fireplaces, and woodstoves). 

3.4.2.2 Ozone

On February 13, 1998, EPA reclassified 

Maricopa County as being in serious 

nonattainment for ozone. Since that time, 

the area has experienced three clean years of 

air quality data, which is the minimum 

amount of time required to demonstrate 

attainment. The Maricopa County Serious 

Area One-hour Ozone SIP was submitted by 

ADEQ to EPA in December 2000 to fulfill 

the attainment demonstration requirements.

On March 21, 2005, EPA proposed approval 

of MAG‘s Final Serious Area Ozone State 
 

Chapter 3

421

Implementation Plan for Maricopa County, 

and MAG‘s One-Hour Ozone Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan (See 70 Fr 

1342). EPA finalized this action on June 14, 

2004 at 70 FR 34362. EPA designated areas 

for the new eight-hour ozone standard 

effective June 15, 2004. The Phoenix 

metropolitan area was designated as a 

―basic‖ Subpart I nonattainment area, with 

all attainment date of June 2009, and a SIP 

demonstrating attainment of this standard 

due in June 2007. The eight-hour ozone 

nonattainment area can be seen at 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/az8.

html. 

Emission Sources: Ozone is a gas formed by 

a chemical reaction between oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) in the presence of 

sunlight. VOC and NOx emissions come 

from point, non-road, area, stationary, motor 

vehicle, and biogenic sources (ADEQ 

2002b).

3.4.3 Water Resources

The public lands in both planning areas fall 

within the three major watersheds of southcentral Arizona: the Middle Gila, Verde, and 

Bill Williams (See Map 3-5 for the locations 

of the major watersheds and sub-watersheds 

within the planning areas). These watersheds 

can be defined into river basins that 

collectively drain the watersheds. The river 

basins of the Middle Gila watershed that 

pertain to this planning effort include the 

Hassayampa, Agua Fria, and Lower Salt 

Rivers. The Agua Fria River originates 

northeast of Prescott and drains into the Gila 

River south of Avondale.

The Hassayampa River originates in the 

Bradshaw Mountains south of Prescott and 

drains the central Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, flowing south into the Gila 

River east of Arlington. The 

Hassayampa is mainly an ephemeral stream, 

flowing typically when it rains. It flows 

perennially for several miles in limited 

reaches, where the shallow depth of the 

bedrock maintains the flow at the surface.

The Hassayampa flows most commonly at 

the northern end of the planning 

area, notably in Hassayampa River Canyon 

Wilderness. At the southern end of the 

planning area, the Hassayampa River fills 

the basin during high rainfall events, 

providing short-term recharge to the basin 

fill aquifer. 

Tributaries of the Salt River, including the 

Grand and Arizona Canals, cross the 

extreme southeast portion of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. In the Prescott 

area, the Verde watershed drains to the north 

via several small drainages, including 

tributaries of Willow, Miller, and Granite 

Creeks. This planning area also includes the 

extreme eastern portion of the Bill Williams 

watershed, which is drained by the 

tributaries of the Santa Maria River, 

including Kirkland, Cottonwood, and Date 

Creeks.

The groundwater in the planning areas is 

confined to the unconsolidated sand and 

gravel aquifer that underlies most of western 

Arizona. The planning areas extend across 

several designated groundwater basins and 

sub-basins, including the

Phoenix Active Management Area 

(AMA), 

Prescott AMA, and

Upper Agua Fria, Upper 

Hassayampa, Bill Williams, 

McMullen Valley, Tiger Wash, and 

Harquahala sub-basins. 

Map 3-6 shows the major groundwater 

basins, sub-basins, and AMAs within the 

planning areas.

Groundwater in the planning areas 

occurs mainly in unconsolidated sand and

gravel deposits, which fill the bottom of the 

Agua Fria River Canyon and occur locally 

in stream alluvium along streams in the 

Agua Fria River drainage and in drainages 
 

Chapter 3

422

in mountainous areas. Water levels are 

generally within a few feet of the surface 

near streams and tens of feet in areas away 

from streams. Groundwater also occurs 

locally in limited amounts within 20 to 50 

feet of the surface in fractures in the rock 

that form most of the mountains in the 

northern part of the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area. In deposits where pumping 

has lowered shallow groundwater supplies, 

water levels have declined.

In the southwest part of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area where broad 

basins dominate the landscape, groundwater 

occurs in basin fill deposits and in 

unconsolidated alluvium in the BradshawHarquahala Basin, the Hassayampa Plain, 

and the West Salt River Valley. In these 

basins, irrigation has lowered groundwater 

levels. Declines range from 50 feet to more 

than 400 feet in some basins (USGS 1992). 

The magnitude of the water-level declines 

varies from basin to basin and reflects the 

influences of hydro-geologic conditions and 

the amount and length of pumping. 

Groundwater also occurs in limited amounts 

within fractures in rock in localized 

areas. Well yields are often low, and these 

units are not a major source of 

groundwater. 

Public lands in the planning areas are 

located within the Gila River System and 

Source General Water Rights Stream 

Adjudication (See Map 3-7 for adjudication 

watershed basins). BLM has filed claims for 

State-based water rights for stockwatering, 

wildlife, and recreation on many small 

springs, seeps, stock ponds, streams, and 

wells within the Agua Fria River, Upper Salt 

River, and Lower Gila River 

subwatersheds. In addition, BLM 

is quantifying its Federal reserved water 

rights established by the 1990 Arizona 

Desert Wilderness Act for the five 

wilderness areas within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area and by the 

proclamation establishing Agua Fria 

National Monument. The proclamation 

(Appendix A) states that ―subject to valid 

existing rights, a quantity of water sufficient 

to fulfill the purposes,‖ for which 

the national monument was established is 

reserved, and that ―nothing in this 

reservation shall be construed as a 

relinquishment or reduction of any water use 

or rights reserved or appropriated by the 

United States,‖ on or before the date of the 

proclamation.

For more detailed information on water 

resources in the Agua Fria River 

watershed, please see Reconnaissance 

Watershed and Hydrologic Analysis on 

the Upper Agua Fria Watershed (Barnett 

and others 2002) and the U.S. 

Geological Survey 2004 draft report 

Hydrologic Characteristics of the Agua 

Fria National Monument, Arizona, 

Determined from the Phase One 

Reconnaissance Study (Fleming 2004).

3.5 Biological 

Resources

3.5.1 Vegetation

BLM manages vegetation within the 

planning areas to ensure high-quality 

wildlife habitat and to protect water 

resources and watershed conditions.

Agua Fria National Monument is dominated 

by a variety of grassland communities, with 

some mixed paloverde-cacti 

communities along its southern boundary.

Mixed paloverde-cacti and creosote-bursage 

communities dominate the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. Grassland 

communities are most abundant in the 

central portions of Yavapai County, which 

includes the northwest and northeast 

portions of the planning area. Evergreen 

sclerophyll (dry forests) dominate the northcentral portions of the planning area.

Pinyon-juniper and desert scrub grasslands 
 

Chapter 3

423

are predominant in this planning area's 

nortern portion that is managed directly by 

BLM (Map 3-8).

The planning areas include a single type of 

wetland plant community and five upland 

vegetation formations. Most wetland 

formations in the planning areas are 

concentrated in riparian corridors along 

perennial and ephemeral streams, rivers, and 

washes. 

3.5.2 Riparian Resources

Approximately 140 miles of riparian 

corridor occur generally in the north and 

northeast sections of the two planning 

areas, 47 miles within Agua Fria National 

Monument and 92 miles within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area (Map 

3-9). These corridors are important 

resources that support a variety of rare 

plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, and native 

fishes. These corridors also serve as 

important water sources, habitat, and resting 

areas for many migratory birds.

Additionally, livestock use these streams as 

water sources.

Since 1995, BLM completed a Proper 

Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment of 

the riparian corridors on BLM-managed 

lands. The table in Appendix Q1 and in 

Appendix Q2 summarizes the results of PFC 

assessments for both planning areas. Within 

the monument, 18.30 miles of riparian 

corridor were classified as PFC. The 

classification functional–at risk, indicating 

that riparian areas were functioning but 

susceptible to degradation, was assigned to 

29.49 miles of riparian corridor. Of these 

29.49 miles, 16.39 were considered in an 

upward trend toward PFC, 8.80 miles 

were showing no apparent trend and the 

remaining 4.30 miles were considered to be 

in a downward trend from PFC.

Management factors that influence the 

condition and trend of riparian areas include 

livestock grazing and trampling; recreation 

uses, including off-highway vehicle use;

roads; and mining.

Within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, 35.14 miles of riparian corridors were 

classified as PFC. The classification 

functional–at risk was assigned to 54.95 

miles, and 2.50 miles were classified as 

nonfunctional. Of those classified as 

functional–at risk, 12.36 miles were 

considered in an upward trend toward 

PFC, 9.40 miles were considered to be in 

a downward trend from PFC, and 33.19 

miles were found to be having no apparent 

trend.

3.5.3 Terrestrial Games 

Species

BLM manages habitat for wildlife on public 

lands. The Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AGFD) manage the wildlife 

populations. The AGFD administers 

hunting, including permitting, bag limit 

identification, and population tracking.

Hunting categories include big game, small 

game, upland birds, waterfowl, and 

predators. Throughout the State, AGFD's 

management of this program is based on the 

numbers of animals present in game 

management units (GMUs). The monument 

falls within GMU 21, while GMUs 19A, 

20A, 20B, 20C, 42, and 44 are 

located within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area.

Large game species within the planning 

areas include black bear (Ursus 

americanus), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis), elk (Cervus elaphus), javelina 

(Pecari tajacu), mountain lion (Felis 

concolor), mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra 

americana), and white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus). Occupied desert 

bighorn sheep habitat is depicted on Map 3-

10. Recent drought conditions have 

generally affected large game population 

trends.
 

Chapter 3

424

Upland bird and small game species within 

the planning areas include Gambel‘s quail 

(Callipepla gambelii), mourning dove 

(Zenaida macroura), white-winged dove 

(Zenaida asiatica), and desert cottontail 

rabbit (Sylvilagus auduboni). Climate and 

habitat conditions dictate the relative 

abundance of these species. Upland bird 

and small game populations have also been 

affected by the recent drought conditions.

Furbearers found within the planning areas 

include the raccoon (Procyon lotor), ringtail 

cat (Bassariscus astutus), bobcat (Felix 

rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox 

(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), skunks 

(Mephitis sp. and Conepatus leuconotus), 

and badger (Taxidea taxus).

3.5.4 Aquatic Game 

Species

BLM also manages habitat for sport fish 

species. While most of the fish populations 

can be found in Lake Pleasant, some 

perennial streams and stock ponds in the 

planning areas also support 

populations. Sport fish within the planning 

areas are non-native, introduced species.

These include largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides), white bass (Morone chrysops), 

striped bass (Morone saxatilis), yellow 

bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), black crappie 

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), channel catfish 

(Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish

(Pylodictus olivaris), common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio), bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus), and green sunfish (Lepomis 

cyanellus). 

3.5.5 Federal 

Endangered, Threatened, 

Proposed, and Candidate 

Species

Federally listed endangered, threatened, and 

candidate species known to occur within the 

planning areas include the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), western yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis), southwestern willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), 

desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius), 

Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

occidentalis), and Gila chub (Gila 

intermedia). Federally listed endangered, 

threatened, and candidate species, which are 

not known to presently occur within the 

planning areas, but have been historically 

recorded there or for which suitable habitat 

exists, are the threatened spikedace (Meda 

fulgida), endangered lesser long-nosed bat 

(Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), 

endangered brown pelican (Pelecanus 

occidentalis californicus), endangered Yuma 

clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) 

and threatened mountain plover (Charadrius 

montanus).

3.5.5.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

Previously listed as endangered, this species 

was down-listed to threatened status in 

1995. The bald eagle averages about threefeet in length and has a six-to-seven-foot

wingspan. It feeds mainly on fish; however, 

waterfowl, small mammals, and carrion 

can constitute a portion of its diet. Bald 

eagles winter throughout Arizona, with at 

least 200 to 300 individuals identified each 

year. There are currently 46 bald eagle 

breeding areas in central Arizona. In 2004, 

40 of these breeding areas were occupied 

and 27 of the areas fledged 42 young eagles 

(Jacobson et at. 2004). All of these breeding 

areas are associated with lakes or streams. 

The only breeding area in the planning areas 

is at the north end of Lake Pleasant in the 

Lade Pleasant Regional Park, managed by 

Maricipa County. They have been nesting 

in this area for many years. They are 

occasionally observed along the portion of 

the Agua Fria River above Lake Pleasant as 

far north as Cordes Junction and within 

Agua Fria National Monument.
 

Chapter 3

425

3.5.5.2 Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 

extimus)

A small (5.75 inches), generally olivecolored or grayish-brown, neo-tropical 

migratory bird, the federally listed 

endangered southwestern willow flycatcher 

is a riparian obligate species, whose range 

once included southern California, southern 

Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New 

Mexico, western Texas, and southwest 

Colorado. The flycatcher breeds in dense 

riparian habitats of the southwest United 

States along rivers, streams, or other 

wetlands where trees and shrubs are next to 

or near surface water. 

Loss or modification of habitat is the main 

cause of the flycatcher‘s decline. Nesting 

habitats tend to be uncommon, isolated, and 

widely dispersed. The habitat has been 

historically unstable due to natural floods, 

fire, and drought. Increasing human demand 

for water from riparian systems 

has modified, reduced, 

or destroyed mechanisms that contribute to 

the natural production of suitable 

habitat. This species has been documented 

but is not known to nest in the Hassayampa 

River Preserve, south of Wickenburg and 

along the Agua Fria River channel below the 

dam at Lake Pleasant. Survey efforts have 

not recorded this species elsewhere in either 

planning areas. Most riparian areas in the 

planning areas are not considered suitable 

habitat for this species because stream 

gradient, channel width and flood frequency 

preclude the development of suitable habitat 

patches.

3.5.5.3 Western Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus occidentalis)

The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a 

brownish, medium-sized migratory bird.

Adults are typically about 12 inches long 

and breed in dense willow and cottonwood 

stands in river floodplains. This 

species became a candidate species under 

review for listing as threatened or 

endangered on June 13, 2002.

A total of 168 yellow-billed cuckoo pairs 

and 80 single birds were found in Arizona in 

1999, according to the preliminary results 

from a statewide survey that covered 265 

miles of river and creek bottoms. The loss 

of riparian habitat is the main reason 

for yellow-billed cuckoo declines in the 

western United States. Despite habitat loss, 

the cuckoo can still be found in all counties 

in Arizona and has been recorded along 

several riparian areas in both planning areas. 

Although comprehensive surveys have not 

been conducted throughout both planning 

areas, cuckoos have been documented along 

parts of the Hassayampa River, Cow Creek, 

Humbug Creek and the Agua Fria River in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

and along Ash Creek, Little Ash Creek, Dry 

Creek, Indian Creek, Sycamore Creek and 

the Agua Fria River on the Agua Fria 

National Monument.

3.5.5.4 Desert Pupfish 

(Cyprinodon macularius)

The desert pupfish is a small (less than two

inches long), federally listed endangered fish 

with a smoothly rounded body and narrow, 

vertical, dark bars on its sides. Once 

common in desert springs, marshes, 

backwaters and tributaries of the Rio 

Sonoita, San Pedro River, Santa Cruz River, 

lower Gila River, and lower Colorado River 

drainages in Arizona, California, and 

Mexico; this species is now restricted to 

three natural populations in California, along 

with the human-made irrigation drains 

around the Salton Sea. Desert pupfish are 

also found in restricted locations in Sonora 

and Baja California, Mexico.

In 1997 pupfish were transplanted into AD 

Wash, which is on State Trust Land within 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area; 
 

Chapter 3

426

however, the populations did not survive.

Reintroduction efforts, managed jointly 

by Arizona Game and Fish Department, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and BLM 

are ongoing and may include other perennial 

streams within the planning area. In 2001 

pupfish were transplanted into Lousy 

Canyon Creek, within Agua Fria National 

Monument. This site was supplementally 

stocked in 2006. In 2006 pupfish were 

introduced into a tributary to Larry Canyon, 

also in the Agua Fria National Monument.

3.5.5.5 Gila Chub (Gila 

intermedia)

The Gila chub is a small-finned, deepbodied minnow that was listed as 

endangered in 2005, along with the 

designation of critical habitat. The critical 

habitat designation includes portions of 

Silver Creek, a tributary to Larry Canyon, 

Lousy Canyon, and Indian Creeks, all in the

Agua Fria National Monument. The Indian 

Creek and silver Creek populations are 

natural while the populations in Lousy 

Canyon and the tributary to Larry Creek 

were introduced in 1995. 

Gila chub prefer quiet pools and have a 

tendency to remain near cover such as 

terrestrial vegetation, boulders, and fallen 

logs in smaller streams, springs, and 

cienegas (desert wetlands). Livestock 

grazing and high levels of recreation use can 

degrade Gila chub habitat. Additionally, 

competition or predation by introduced nonnative aquatic species contributes to 

population declines. 

Naturally occurring populations of Gila 

chub can be found within the national 

monument in Indian and Silver Creeks.

Additionally, in 1995 Gila chub were 

transplanted into Larry and Lousy Canyon 

Creeks within the monument; these 

introduced populations continue to exist.

3.5.5.6 Gila Topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

occidentalis)

The federally listed endangered Gila 

topminnow is a small, guppy-like, livebearing fish that prefers vegetated margins 

and backwaters of intermittent and perennial 

streams and rivers. Adults tend to 

congregate in waters of moderate current 

below riffles, and along the margins of 

flowing streams in accumulated algae mats.

A decline in Gila topminnow populations 

has resulted from the following:

the introduction and spread of 

nonindigenous predatory and 

competitive fishes, including the 

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), 

water impoundments and diversions, 

water pollution, 

groundwater pumping, 

stream channelization, and

habitat modification. 

Gila topminnows were transplanted to Tule 

Creek (within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area) in the early 1970s and to AD 

Wash on State Trust Land in the early 

1990s. In 2000, this fish was transplanted 

into Lousy Canyon Creek within the 

national monument. In 2005 this species 

was transplanted into a tributary to Larry 

Canyon also on the Agua Fria National 

Monument. Gila topminnow populations 

continue to persist at all three of these 

locations. Reintroduction efforts are ongoing 

and may include perennial streams and 

springs within the planning areas.

3.5.5.7 Spikedace (Meda 

fulgida)

A small fish, federally listed as 

threatened, the spikedace is unique in that it 

is the only species in its genus. Spikedace 

were once abundant and widespread in 

moderate and large rivers and streams within 

the Gila River basin, including the Gila, 
 

Chapter 3

427

Salt, and Verde Rivers and their tributaries--

the San Pedro, San Francisco, and Agua Fria 

Rivers. The current distribution in Arizona 

is restricted to Aravaipa Creek, Eagle Creek 

and the upper Verde River. The decline of 

this species has been attributed to habitat 

destruction or alteration and interactions 

with non-native fishes. The Agua Fria River 

is historic habitat that could still support a 

spikedace population with active 

management.

3.5.5.8 Lesser Long-nosed 

Bat (Leptonycteris curasoae 

yerbabuenae)

The lesser long-nosed bat is a small bat that 

forages on the nectar, pollen and fruit of 

paniculate agaves and columnar cacti. This 

species is threatened by loss of foraging 

habitat and roost sites. It is a seasonal 

resident of southeastern and western 

Arizona as far north as Maricopa County. It 

has been collected from the Phoenix area 

within the planning areas, post breeding. 

3.5.5.9 California Brown 

Pelican (Pelecanus 

occidentalis californicus)

The brown pelican is a large fish-eating bird 

that was threatened due to reproductive 

failure caused by pesticides. It is a coastal 

species, nesting on islands along the coast of 

California and Mexico. Post breeding birds 

are common along the Pacific coast north to 

Canada and along the Colorado River 

annually. Occasional wandering individuals 

are found along the Salt and Gila Rivers and 

at Lake Pleasant in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area.

3.5.5.10 Yuma Clapper Rail 

(Rallus longirostris 

yumanensis)

The Yuma clapper rail is a small wading 

bird that inhabits dense riparian and marsh 

habitat characterized by dense stands of 

cattail and bulrush along the shoreline. It is 

threatened by habitat destruction. The 

current distribution of the species is along 

the Colorado River downstream of Lake 

Mead and along the Salt and Gila Rivers. 

This species may be expanding its range to 

include suitable habitats within the planning 

areas, but has not yet done so.

3.5.5.11 Mountain Plover 

(Charadrius montanus)

The mountain plover is a small ground 

nesting bird. They nest on flat, sparsely 

vegetated ground in the Western Great 

Plains and Colorado plateau. This species 

winters in Arizona between November and 

March, utilizing cultivated and noncultivated annual grasslands and sparsely 

vegetated valley bottoms. Within the 

planning areas, they have been found 

wintering on cultivated lands.

3.5.6 Other Special 

Status Species

The AGFD has a list of wildlife of special 

concern in Arizona. This list includes taxa 

that are federally listed as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act as well as many that are not listed.

BLM manages these species so as not to 

contribute to the need to list them as 

threatened or endangered. Within the 

planning areas are four bats, fourteen birds, 

and four reptiles or amphibians on the State 

list which are not federally listed. Fifteen of 

these species, 68 percent, either require or 

make use of riparian habitats.
 

Chapter 3

428

In accordance with BLM's Manual 6840, the 

BLM's State Director, in coordination with 

staff professionals, developed a list of 

BLM's sensitive species. These are species 

that BLM believes warrant special 

consideration but are not on the list of 

wildlife of special concern in Arizona.

Within the planning areas, there are three 

BLM's sensitive plant species, and 18 BLM 

sensitive wildlife species. The wildlife 

species include nine bats, three birds, three 

reptiles, or amphibians, and three native fish 

species. The state and BLM sensitive 

species are listed in Appendix U along with 

the occurrence and habitat.

Within the planning areas, six "conservation 

areas" have been identified as important to 

the long-term maintenance of biodiversity 

within the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion in An 

Ecological Analysis of Conservation 

Priorities in the Sonoran Desert 

Ecoregion (Marshall et al. 2000). The 

conservation areas identified are the 

Harquahala Mountains, Harcuvar 

Mountains, Hassayampa River south of 

Wickenburg, Agua Fria Watershed, Black 

Pearl, and El Tigre Mine.

Four additional conservation areas in the 

planning areas were identified in the Apache 

Highlands Ecoregion in An Ecoregional 

Analysis of Conservation Priorities in the 

Apache Highlands Ecoregion (Marshall et 

al. 2004). These conservation areas 

identified are the Agua Fria River/Sycamore 

Mesa, Castle Creek/Black Canyon, 

Hassayampa River/Blind Indian Creek and 

Kirkland Creek/Peeples Valley Grassland.

Two of the conservation areas in the Apache 

Highlands Ecoregion are overlapped by the 

Agua Fria Watershed Conservation Area in 

the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department 

recently completed a comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy (AGFD 2006) which 

identifies wildlife species and habitats with 

greatest conservation need, by ecoregion. 

This plan also identifies stressors that may 

impact wildlife and wildlife habitat and 

describes actions to conserve the identified 

species and habitats.

The Agua Fria River and its tributaries 

designated as an Important Bird Area by the 

National Audubon Society (see Map 3-10), 

provide both breeding and wintering habitat 

for a number of bird species and are 

important bird migration routes.

3.5.6.1 Sonoran Desert 

Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii)

The Mojave population of the desert 

tortoise, which inhabits northern Arizona, 

California, Utah, and Nevada (not within the 

planning areas), is federally listed as 

threatened. The Sonoran population of the 

desert tortoise is not listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 but is

considered a sensitive species by both the 

BLM and the AGFD.

BLM is working cooperatively with various 

State and Federal agencies to complete a 

management plan to stabilize the Sonoran 

population of the desert tortoise. In 

addition, the BLM is working with the 

AGFD and others on a conservation 

agreement specifically addressing the 

Sonoran population of desert tortoise.

The habitat preference for the Sonoran 

populations of the desert tortoise consists of 

paloverde-mixed cacti vegetation 

communities on rocky or bouldery slopes 

below 3,500 feet in elevation although it can 

be found up to 5,000 feet in elevation.

Three habitat classifications, based on 

population, viability, size, density, trend, 

and manageability, were devised from 

BLM's inventories of desert tortoise habitat 

throughout the planning areas between 1989 

and 1999. Map 2-92, shows tortoise 

distribution and habitat classification based 

on the inventory. The criteria used to 

classify the habitat areas are as follows: 
 

Chapter 3

429

Category I – Habitat area essential 

for maintenance of large, viable 

populations. Conflicts resolvable.

Medium to high density or low 

density contiguous with medium or 

high density. Increasing, 

stabilizing, or decreasing 

population. 

Category II – Habitat area may be 

essential to maintenance of viable 

populations. Most conflicts 

resolvable. Medium to high density 

or low density contiguous with 

medium or high density. Stable or 

decreasing population. 

Category III – Habitat area not 

essential to maintenance of viable 

populations. Most conflicts not 

resolvable. Low to medium density 

not contiguous with medium or high 

density. Stable or decreasing 

populations. 

The planning areas contain 93,620 acres of 

desert tortoise habitat classified as Category 

I, 419,530 acres classified as Category II 

and 136,670 acres classified as Category III.

BLM is managing habitat for the desert 

tortoise under two existing plans; the Desert 

Tortoise Habitat Management on Public 

Lands: A Rangewide Plan (BLM 1988b) and 

Strategy for Desert Tortoise Habitat 

Management Plan on Public Lands in 

Arizona (BLM 1990a).

3.5.7 Invasive Species

Invasive species occur throughout the two 

planning areas and can generally be defined 

as ―alien species whose introduction does or 

is likely to cause economic or environmental 

harm or harm to human health‖ (Executive 

Order 13112). Invasive species, which have 

often been accidentally introduced into 

ecosystems by humans, can be detrimental 

to the environment because they can 

directly harm native species, either by 

predation or competition. In turn, this harm 

can affect general ecosystem functions.

Some of the floral invasive species known 

within the planning areas include African 

mustard (Brassica tournefortii), fountain 

grass (Pennisetum alopecuroides), 

bufflegrass (Cenchrus ciliaris), wild oats 

(Avena fatua), saltcedar (Tamarix 

ramosissima), and Malta‘s star thistle 

(Centaurea melitensis), which occurs within 

the monument. Invasive aquatic plants are 

also known to occur within some riparian 

areas. Other species are also likely to 

occur because of the presence of suitable 

conditions, substrates, or both.

Invasive animals, both terrestrial 

and aquatic, include starlings (Sturnus 

vulgaris), crawfish (Procambarus clarkii), 

bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), spiny softshell turtles (Trionyx spiniferus), 

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and green 

sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). Infestation by 

some of these species is so great that some 

native species are threatened with 

extirpation.

3.6 Cultural 

Resources 

West-central Arizona has a rich and diverse 

cultural heritage. Native American groups 

have lived in the region for thousands of 

years. Settlers of European descent first 

arrived in small numbers in the late 16th 

century, and then in much larger numbers in 

the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

Cultural resources represent the tangible 

remnants of this rich legacy; which include 

prehistoric and historic sites and places of 

traditional cultural importance. Today, 

portions of the planning areas are among the 

fastest growing regions in the United States. 

This growth threatens important cultural 

resources at an alarming rate.

BLM manages cultural resources to protect 

and make proper use of their important 

scientific, educational, and cultural heritage 

values. Within the planning areas, BLM's 
 

Chapter 3

430

Phoenix District manages some of the most 

important and best-preserved prehistoric and 

historic archaeological sites in the American 

Southwest (Ahlstrom and Roberts 1995; 

North 2002; Stone 1986). Additionally, 

cultural resources include sites of

significance to Indian tribes.

Archaeological evidence reveals that 

Archaic hunters and gatherers began to live 

in the region at least 6,000 years ago. Later, 

occupants included the farmers of the 

prehistoric Hohokam, Perry Mesa, Prescott, 

and Patayan traditions. These people may 

have been ancestors of the O‘odham, Hopi, 

Yavapai, and Yuman Indian tribes.

Prehistoric archaeological sites include 

properties as diverse as pueblo ruins, 

agricultural terraces, hunting camps, 

seasonal settlements, lithic quarries, trails, 

and rock art. Many of the prehistoric and 

historic native people moved to different 

sites on the landscape during different 

seasons to gather a wide range of plant and 

animal resources. Therefore, many of the 

artifact scatters and other archaeological 

sites represent temporary camps or resource 

collection and processing areas.

This region of central Arizona played an 

important role in Arizona's modern history.

It includes Arizona‘s two State capitals, 

Prescott and its successor Phoenix.

Moreover, the region includes some of the 

most significant historical mining districts in 

the State, concentrated in the Bradshaw, 

Vulture, and Weaver mountain ranges. 

Homesteaders, ranchers, merchants, and 

dam builders followed the miners. Historic

archaeological sites include properties as 

diverse as mines, mills, ghost towns, 

ranches, homesteads, roads, and trails.

Agua Fria National Monument was 

established to protect significant cultural and 

natural resources. The monument contains 

more than 400 known archaeological sites, 

including prehistoric pueblo ruins and 

spectacular rock art. The monument is 

likely to contain thousands of sites, because 

archaeological surveys have covered less 

than five percent of its area. The zone north 

of Perry Mesa remains largely unexplored 

but may contain significant resources.

Perry Mesa Archaeological District is listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places.

The district was established on BLMadministered land in 1974, when much of 

Perry Mesa consisted of State Trust Land.

BLM and the Tonto National Forest 

cooperated to expand the district in 1996.

Its territory of about 50,000 acres 

encompasses Black Mesa and Perry Mesa, 

including important sites in Tonto National 

Forest. The district represents a cultural 

landscape defined by a well-preserved 

settlement system of communities occupied 

between A.D. 1250 and 1450. The sites 

within this system include the following:

Pueblos and other masonry 

structures ranging from one to more 

than 100 rooms, 

Hilltop sites that may have served 

defensive purposes, 

Agricultural terraces, 

Rock art, and

Artifact scatters left by a wide range 

of temporary activities. 

BLM recognized the significance of these 

resources in designating the Perry Mesa 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern in 

the Phoenix Resource Management Plan 

(BLM 1988a). Although prehistoric sites 

represent most of the known cultural 

resources, the monument also contains 

historic sites, including features from 

ranching history and the operation of the 

Richinbar Mine.

Under the existing management direction for 

the Phoenix RMP (BLM 1988a) and Agua 

Fria National Monument, BLM has carried 

out proactive management of cultural 

resources in the Perry Mesa ACEC and 

surrounding zones on Perry Mesa and Black 

Mesa. Since 1990 management 
 

Chapter 3

431

accomplishments have included the 

following: 

archaeological inventories on Perry 

Mesa and Black Mesa (Heuett and 

Long 1995, North 2002); 

documentation of rock art sites; 

coordinated efforts with Tonto 

National Forest to prepare a site 

vandalism study (Ahlstrom et al. 

1992), 

an archaeological overview 

(Ahlstrom and Roberts 1995), 

documentation for expanding the 

Perry Mesa National Register 

District in 1996; and 

monitoring of significant sites by 

the Civil Air Patrol and Arizona Site 

Steward Program volunteers. 

These actions have provided enhanced 

knowledge and protection of cultural 

resources.

Prehistoric sites on Perry and Black Mesas 

have suffered damage from vandalism and 

artifact theft over decades. In the early 

1990s, BLM and Tonto National Forest 

produced a comprehensive study of the 

history and effects of these activities 

(Ahlstrom and others 1992). The 

publicity from the legal case against Jones, 

Jones, and Gevara, caught in 1977, 

vandalizing a site on Perry Mesa in Tonto 

National Forest, contributed to the 

enactment of the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act. The recent publicity 

surrounding the designation of the national 

monument attracted attention that may have 

put sites at greater risk. Since early 

2000 BLM, has increased levels of patrol 

and site surveillance, and there have been no 

major incidents of vandalism.

The statewide AZSITE database lists more 

than 1,500 archaeological sites in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

including slightly more than 200 BLMadministered sites. Also, this 

region has approximately a five 

percent level of archaeological survey 

coverage. Surveyed areas are clustered near 

urban areas and along transportation routes, 

utility lines, and the Central Arizona Project 

aqueduct. As mitigation for raising the New 

Waddell dam and raising the level of Lake 

Pleasant, the Bureau of Reclamation 

conducted 100 percent class III survey of the 

Lake Pleasant Regional Park. In 

addition, before preparing the Lower Gila 

North Management Framework Plan (BLM 

1983), BLM completed a sample survey 

of one percent of Federal lands within the 

Vulture and Harcuvar Planning Units in the 

western desert.

Given the incomplete status of the AZSITE 

database and the low level of survey 

coverage, one can reasonably expect that 

Table 3-4. Ages of Known Cultural Sites in the Planning Areas

Age Number of Sites Percentage of Total Comments

Prehistoric 774 45.58 12,000 BC to AD 1500

Historic 641 37.75 AD 1500 to 1950

Unknown 196 11.54 No diagnostic information or not listed on site card

Multicomponent 53 3.12 Historic and prehistoric elements

Recent 28 1.65 AD 1950 to present

No information 6 0.35 No information or no site card available
 

Chapter 3

432

several thousand prehistoric and historic 

sites remain undiscovered on public lands in 

the planning areas (Table 3-4). Known 

Cultural Sites summarizes the periods of 

occupation (ages) of known sites within both 

planning areas, regardless of land status.

Away from Agua Fria National Monument, 

the highest density of prehistoric sites is 

along the Agua Fria River and other streams 

north of Phoenix. These data, although 

incomplete, may well reflect the distribution 

of prehistoric populations, which tend to 

cluster near perennial streams and water 

sources. Several mountain ranges, notably 

the Bradshaw foothills, the White Tanks, the 

Harquahalas, and the Harcuvars, also appear 

to have relatively high densities of 

prehistoric sites. Sites generally are 

concentrated along the lower slopes and in 

canyons because of the presence of springs, 

natural tanks, and wild food resources in 

these zones. Additionally, many of the more 

productive mountain ranges were home to 

several regional bands of the Yavapai Tribe.

The Vulture, Big Horn, and Harcuvar 

mountain ranges contained localized sources 

of high-quality materials for stone tools, 

sometimes transported or traded over great 

distances. Although people used the desert 

expanses west of the Hassayampa River 

over several thousand years, this arid zone 

has a relatively low density of 

archaeological sites. It does contain 

distinctive features, such as prehistoric trails 

potentially linked into networks extensive 

enough to connect villages along the 

Colorado and Gila Rivers.

Historic period sites tend to be concentrated 

near the modern towns of Prescott, 

Wickenburg, and Black Canyon City. Many 

significant mines or mining-related sites are 

on public lands in and around the Bradshaw 

foothills and the Vulture and Weaver 

Mountains. Among the notable historic 

roads and trails is the route of large-scale 

sheep drives through the Black Canyon 

corridor. Many sites reflect the critical 

interdependencies among mining, ranching, 

homesteading, commerce, and economic 

development.

The Harquahala Peak Smithsonian 

Observatory, a unique building at the 

summit of the Harquahalas, supported 

astronomical studies by the Smithsonian 

Institution during the 1920s. The 

Harquahala Mountain Observatory Historic 

District listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places; includes the observatory 

building, the historic Harquahala Pack Trail, 

Ellison‘s Camp, and associated 

features. This observatory is the only 

cultural site within the planning areas that 

has been the focus of interpretive 

development for public visitation.

Interpretive signs have been installed at the 

observatory building and at a kiosk along 

the Harquahala Peak Back County Byway 

located at the base of the mountains.

Historically, Pima groups of the O‘odham 

people lived in the southern portion of the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

generally south of the Bradshaw foothills 

and east of the Hassayampa River. These 

groups claim cultural ties to the prehistoric 

Hohokam, who ranged further north during 

prehistoric times. Their descendants now 

live in the Salt River Pima-Maricopa, Gila 

River, and Ak-Chin communities.

The Yavapai people occupied the remaining 

zones within the planning areas, including 

Agua Fria National Monument. The 

Kewevkapaya (Southeastern Yavapai) lived 

in the Bradshaw Mountains. The Yavepe 

(Central Yavapai) occupied the area around 

present-day Prescott, and the Tolkapaya 

(Western Yavapai) lived in the desert and 

mountains of western Arizona. The 

Yavapai now live in the Fort McDowell, 

Prescott, Middle Verde, and Clarkdale 

communities.

The Maricopa and Mohave tribes, who 

spoke Yuman languages and lived along the 

Gila and Colorado rivers, likely hunted or 
 

Chapter 3

433

collected natural resources in the western 

portion of the planning area.

The Hopi, who currently reside several 

hundred miles northeast of Phoenix, have 

oral traditions that describe extensive 

migrations throughout Arizona. The 

conspicuous presence of Hopi Yellow Ware 

pottery at villages in Agua Fria National 

Monument shows prehistoric cultural ties to 

the Hopi people.

Tribes have expressed concerns regarding 

preserving cultural heritage values of 

prehistoric archaeological sites. Tribes often 

cite special significance to rock art, springs, 

habitation sites, and cemeteries. Therefore, 

ongoing consultations are needed 

to determine which traditional cultural 

properties or other places are of singular 

significance.

Cultural diversity in the planning areas also 

encompasses the history of ethnic groups, 

including Mexican and Cornish miners, 

Chinese workers, Basque shepherds, and 

African-American settlers. Archaeological 

sites in the planning areas may hold 

compelling clues about their lives and 

challenges in the Arizona desert.

Damage and destruction from natural 

processes and human activities threaten 

cultural resources. Natural sources of 

damage include geological processes such 

as, erosion and deflation. Prehistoric and 

historic standing structures are in danger of 

collapse from the effects of weathering.

Rapid population growth and urban 

expansion have intensified the risks of 

damage from development and recreation 

activities. Damage from trash dumping, 

indiscriminant off-highway vehicle use, 

looting, and vandalism is expected to 

increase as more people travel farther and 

more often into previously remote areas.

The Phoenix District strives to avoid or 

mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources 

in evaluating and implementing proposed 

projects and activities. However, it is more 

difficult to manage impacts caused by 

unplanned and casual activities. Frequently 

monitoring inspections and public education 

can help protect archaeological sites, 

particularly those near the Phoenix urban 

area, rural towns, and transportation routes.

Through a partnership with the Arizona Site 

Steward Program, BLM regularly monitors 

at least 50 sites within the planning areas. In 

the future, community partnerships may 

provide more opportunities for site 

monitoring, public education, and 

interpretive developments for cultural 

heritage tourism.

Most known sites represent native 

archaeological cultures such as the 

Hohokam and Sinagua. A substantial 

percentage of sites are Euro-American. The 

number of native archaeological culture sites 

conforms closely with the prehistoric sites, 

whereas the number of Euro-American sites 

fit closely to the number of historical period 

sites. Some sites were affiliated with both 

prehistoric and Euro-American cultures, and 

a small fraction represents unlisted or 

unidentified cultural affiliation. An even 

smaller portion consists of sites affiliated 

with extant Native American cultures, such 

as the Yuman or Pai groups. 

3.7 Paleontological 

Resources

Paleontological resources, or fossils, are a 

nonrenewable resource that provides 

scientific value and clues to the geologic 

history of central Arizona. While a minimal 

amount of paleontological research has been 

conducted in the region, 11 paleontological 

sites are known to occur within, or in close 

proximity to the planning areas. None of the 

known paleontological occurrences have 

been found on BLM-managed land within 

the two planning areas.
 

Chapter 3

434

Paleontological resources are not currently 

actively managed under any existing 

management plans for these two planning 

areas.

3.8 Recreation

The closeness of the planning areas to the 

fast-growing Phoenix metropolitan area has 

dramatically increased the level of 

recreation within the planning areas. While 

opportunities for developed or formalized 

recreation exist at relatively few locations, 

such as the Lake Pleasant area, open 

recreation opportunities abound throughout 

both planning areas. BLM is responsible for 

integrating recreation needs and demands 

with other uses on public lands.

BLM uses a planning tool known as the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to 

determine which areas are suitable to be 

managed or maintained for various types of 

recreation. The ROS classification system is 

a way to help assure that people recreate in 

desirable settings and opportunities exist for 

a broad range of users. The Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum on Map 3-11, shows 

the ROS inventory prepared as part of the 

planning process. 

BLM issues Special Recreation Permits 

(SRPs) for commercial and competitive 

uses, organized group events and activities, 

and vending operations conducted on public 

lands. The permits can be for one-time 

events, such as an OHV race or horse ride, 

or for on-going commercial uses such as 

jeep tours. BLM issues SRPs on a firstcome, first-served basis. BLM issued 57 

SRPs in 2004, to include 3 competitive 

races; 18 motorized and non-motorized 

special events and organized group 

fundraisers, and 32 commercial permits for 

outfitter and guide activities such as big 

game hunting, OHV tours and horse trail 

rides. 

To help direct future management and 

planning, BLM's Phoenix District engaged 

Arizona State University (ASU) West to 

conduct a survey to better understand and 

quantify recreation use in the planning areas 

(Andereck and others 2002). Respondents 

said, hiking/walking were their most 

frequent activities, followed by four-wheel 

driving, sightseeing, motorcycle/all-terrain 

vehicle (ATV) riding, and camping. Other 

activities include visiting cultural sites, 

picnicking, photography, wildlife and bird 

watching, target shooting, and hunting. The 

demand for these types of recreation is 

likely to increase as the Phoenix 

metropolitan area experiences accelerated 

growth over the next several 

decades. Especially, with the population of 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties expected to 

increase from 3,829,200 in 2005 to 

5,923,500 in 2025. Additionally, visitation 

to the planning areas is expected to 

increase proportional or higher to the rate of 

population growth of the two counties, or by 

55 percent, by 2025.

No reliable user-day information is available 

for the planning areas. But, according to the 

AGFD web site, OHV use increased 

about 1.5 times faster than the population of 

Arizona from 1997 to 2003. Additionally, 

the number of OHVs sold in Arizona 

increased from 7,964 vehicles in 1997 to 

23,568 vehicles in 2002. A 1990 study by 

Arizona State Parks estimated that there 

were more than 500,000 OHVs in Arizona.

Some of the most rapid population growth is 

in Maricopa County. According to data 

collected by Arizona State University 

(Andereck and others 2002), Maricopa and 

Yavapai Counties account for about 70 

percent of the visitors to the planning areas.

The projected increase of more than two 

million people in the two counties is 

expected to substantially increase recreation 

use, especially OHV use, in the planning 

areas. OHV use is a significant form of 

recreation on BLM-managed lands. In the 

Agua Fria National Monument, dispersed 

camping is allowed in most areas. Popular 

sites lie along the network of roads and off 
 

Chapter 3

435

spurs. Many sites exist throughout the 

monument, and all have been established 

through public use. Many sites exist in 

illegal zones such as within 1⁄4 mile of water 

facilities and at archaeological sites.

The substantial environmental 

concerns reported in the survey were litter, 

trash dumping, and vandalism.

Additionally, social concerns focus on use 

of unregulated OHVs, target shooting, and 

residential/commercial development in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

Respondents commented that the 

following are generally insufficient:

information on the area, 

informational signs, 

drinking water, 

law enforcement, and

toilet facilities. 

In this same ASU West study (Andereck 

2003), the Agua Fria National Monument 

recreation visitor profile showed a greater 

interest in the following:

hiking and walking, 

nature study, 

visiting historical and cultural sites, 

dispersed camping, and

wildlife and bird watching.

There was less interest in motorized 

activities, mountain biking, and picnicking. 

However, there was a strong preference for 

retaining the natural character of the 

environmental setting while developing 

visitor support facilities and increasing road 

maintenance, interpretive programs, and 

visitor services.

Those surveyed ranked social concerns for 

the monument accordingly: 

1. unregulated OHV use, 

2. off-road vehicles, 

3. inconsiderate people, and

4. target shooting. 

Environmental concerns stated were litter, 

erosion, vandalism, livestock grazing, trash 

dumping, and vehicle damage to soils and 

plants.

Designating Agua Fria National Monument 

elevated the area, from the perspective of the 

general population, to a unique status, thus 

increasing the public interest. Recreation

professionals often refer to this as a 

―designation effect,‖ which describes the 

increase in interest of an area once it has 

been recognized through legislation or 

executive action as an area that is ―special.‖

3.9 Wilderness 

Characteristics

In concert with Agua Fria National 

Monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

RMP, BLM has considered certain public 

lands for the presence of wilderness 

characteristics, including naturalness, 

solitude, and opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined recreation. BLM evaluated 

lands with wilderness characteristics: 

In response to public comment 

obtained through scoping, 

Pursuant to Sections 201 and 202 of 

the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, 

In applying Washington Office 

Instruction Memorandum 2003-274, 

BLM Implementation of the 

Settlement of Utah v. Norton 

Regarding Wilderness Study and 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-

275, change one, Consideration of 

Wilderness Characteristics in Land 

Use Plans (Excluding Alaska) (both 

of which can be found in Appendix 

I), and

In reviewing the 1980 Section 603 

wilderness inventory findings--these 

findings are the wilderness 

inventory for public lands in the 

planning areas. 
 

Chapter 3

436

Landscape features associated with the 

concept of wilderness 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

practical to manage. 

Also, what must be present are naturalness 

and outstanding opportunities for solitude, 

and/or primitive and unconfined recreation 

wilderness characteristics. 

Agua Fria National Monument

All 70,900 acres of Agua Fria National 

Monument were examined for the presence 

of wilderness characteristics in August and 

September 2002. Most of these lands were 

acquired and placed in public ownership 

after completion of the 1980 inventory, and 

have never been examined for the presence 

of wilderness characteristics. A total of 

33,329 acres were determined to have 

wilderness characteristics. 

Wilderness characteristics are found in four 

geographic areas of the national monument 

(Map 3-12): 

Agua Fria River Canyon, extending 

south of Bloody Basin Road to the 

powerline and pumping station, 

Baby Canyon, extending 

from Bloody Basin Road to the 

Agua Fria River confluence, 

Silver Creek/Long Gulch drainage 

and uplands, including Indian Creek 

and

Perry Mesa, centered on Larry, and 

Lousy Canyons. 

The remaining AFNM lands, totaling 33,329 

acres, were inventoried for wilderness 

character and found not to possess 

wilderness characteristics. The parcels were 

determined to be unnatural in character, or 

they did not possess outstanding solitude 

and/or primitive or unconfined recreation 

opportunities.

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

Public comments and scoping supported 

assessments of wilderness characteristics in 

parts of the Harquahala Mountains, the Big 

Horn Mountains, the Hassayampa River 

Canyon and Round Mountain area, the 

Belmont Mountains, Baldy Mountain (west 

of Lake Pleasant), Black Canyon Creek, and 

Black Butte. A total of 186,037 acres were 

determined to have varying degrees of 

wilderness character. The following areas, 

formerly Section 603 Wilderness Study 

Area (WSA) lands, and some lands adjacent 

to such areas, were determined to have 

wilderness characteristics (Map 3-12):

Harquahala Mountains - 56,040 

acres, 

Hummingbird Springs – 44,649 

acres,

Big Horn Mountains - 1,645 acres, 

and

Hassayampa River Canyon/Round 

Mountain areas - 13,200 acres 

These areas were essentially in the same 

condition as reported by the Section 603 

wilderness inventory in 1980. They also 

represented important desert tortoise and big 

horn sheep habitat, general wildlife habitat, 

and scenic open space values. They were 

considered landscapes at risk due to 

increasing OHV use, visitation, and 

population growth. 

Parts of the Belmont Mountains (totaling 

31,900 acres), the Black Butte area (totaling 

14,310 acres), a public land area south of the 

Castle Creek Wilderness (totaling 333 

acres), and a part of the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains near Baldy Mountain (totaling 

9,080 acres) were also examined for 

wilderness characteristics in response to 

public scoping comments (Map 3-12). BLM 

examined these areas and determined that 
 

Chapter 3

437

they are essentially natural and have 

wilderness characteristics. These 

locales also encompass important desert 

tortoise habitat, big horn sheep habitat, 

raptor habitat, geologic values, and scenic 

open space opportunities and values. They 

were considered landscapes at risk due to 

increasing OHV use, 

visitation, and population growth.

One new area was examined for wilderness 

characteristics in the Black Canyon corridor 

near Slate Creek. Most of the public lands 

in this locale were not under public 

ownership in 1980; hence they were never 

examined for wilderness character. A total 

of 14,880 acres were determined to have 

wilderness character after a meticulous field 

assessment.

All areas considered to have some measure 

of wilderness character are depicted on Map 

3-12. Other areas submitted by the public for 

management of wilderness characteristics 

were determined not to have wilderness 

character.

3.10 Visual 

Resources

The planning areas are generally located in 

the Basin and Range Physiographic 

Province. Scenery varies greatly. Mesas 

and deep canyons characterize the terrain of 

Agua Fria National Monument. The scenery 

of the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area includes rugged mountains, striking 

cliff formations, 

foothills, mesas, washes, bajadas, and broad 

plains. Major visual intrusions include 

highways and other vehicle routes, evidence 

of mining and ranching, and utility rights-ofway. 

BLM is required to manage public lands to 

protect their scenic values. To consistently 

evaluate its lands within their regional 

context, BLM developed the Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) program.

BLM uses the VRM process to manage the 

scenic quality of the landscape and to reduce 

the impact of development on the scenery.

The VRM program consists of inventory and 

analysis components. The inventory is a 

process through which BLM determines the 

quality, sensitivity, and management 

issues of the visual setting of public lands.

The analysis component is used to assess the 

visual impacts of specific projects before 

they are implemented. The VRM process 

includes the following steps. 

Evaluate the quality of existing 

scenery, 

Consider the distance from which 

that scenery is viewed, and

Rate the public‘s sensitivity to 

changes in the landscape. 

The VRM program has not been applied to 

all of the lands within the planning areas.

VRM classes were established in 1982 for 

all public lands in the Lower Gila North 

MFP as amended (BLM 2005) area as part 

of the Lower Gila North Grazing EIS (BLM 

1982). A range of Class II, III, and IV 

classes were established, based on 

inventories completed in the 1970s. In 

1990, Class I standards and objectives were 

applied to 96,820 acres within five 

designated wilderness areas. Other parts of 

the planning areas are managed under an 

interim Class III standard. 

BLM is aware these planning areas contain a 

wide range of visual features needing 

protection from degradation in managing 

and implementing other land uses.

Moreover, much development has occurred, 

and public attitudes about landscapes and 

open space have changed in the quarter 

century since the original VRM inventories 

were completed. BLM's lands, once remote, 

are now near or within growing urban and 

rural population centers and are crossed by 

new paved highways.
 

Chapter 3

438

The wild, west landscape is rapidly 

being converted to housing developments as 

millions of people move to Arizona. This 

growth has resulted in a vanishing desert 

landscape. The people moving to Arizona 

are no longer mainly retired seniors.

Growing job markets are attracting a 

diversity of people; resulting in a wide range 

of demographics. Phoenix is the fifth largest 

city in the United States with continuous 

growth. Because these communities back 

up to BLM-managed lands, maintaining 

scenic quality is crucial for social, 

psychological, and spiritual well-being. 

Accordingly, as part of this planning effort, 

BLM has developed an updated VRM 

inventory to do the following:

Examine scenic quality,

Consider viewing distances, and

Assess public sensitivity to 

landscape changes.

The inventory was prepared according to the 

basic methodology outlined in BLM's 

Manual H-8410-1. Several of the steps were 

performed using a geographic information 

system. The inventory determined that 

96,820 acres fit the criteria for Visual 

Resource Inventory Class I, 593,450 acres 

fit criteria for Class II, 162,000 acres fit 

Class III, and 114,730 acres fit Class IV.

See Map 3-13, for the results of the VRM 

inventory. 

3.11 Rangeland 

Management

Grazing on BLM's land in Arizona is 

managed under Title 43 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 4100, 

and is based on the following:

Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) (43 

U.S.C. 315, 315a through 315r), 

FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), 

and

Public Rangeland Improvement Act 

(43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), and other 

executive and public land orders. 

Leases and permits are valid for 10 years, 

with use reports annually submitted by 

leaseholders and permittees. BLM typically 

changes allotment schedules, stocking rates, 

class of livestock, or other grazing practices 

if a resource concern arises. BLM evaluates 

allotments when leases or permits are 

scheduled for renewal, consistent with the 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration 

(Land Health Standards).

BLM analyzes rangeland allotments by 

resource characteristics, ecological potential, 

opportunities, and needs. Allotments are 

then managed by the three categories of 

"Maintain," "Improve," or 

"Custodial." Agua Fria National Monument 

has 10 BLM-authorized grazing allotments 

(11 permittees), totaling 72,587 acres 

(70,820 BLM acres). These allotments have 

a permitted carrying capacity of 13,492 

animal unit months (AUMs) of forage. An 

AUM is the amount of forage needed to 

sustain one cow, or its equivalent, for 1 

month. The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area has 91 BLM-authorized grazing 

allotments, totaling 1,855,738, acres 

(896,000 BLM acres) and 69,568 AUMs of 

forage. Appendix O shows allotment names 

and numbers, permitted AUMs, and 

livestock numbers and types for the planning 

areas.

In 2002 a total of 36,000 head of cattle were 

raised in Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, 

the two counties that include the planning 

area.

Within the planning areas, grazing 

allotments can be classed in one of three 

ways according to the availability of forage:

(1) perennial, (2) perennial/ephemeral, or (3) 

ephemeral.
 

Chapter 3

439

Perennial allotments produce a fairly 

dependable amount of forage every year, 

and the allotment stocking rate is based on 

that production. Perennial allotments are at 

the upper elevations of the planning areas, 

where precipitation is higher and more 

dependable than at lower elevations.

In the lower deserts, allotments that produce 

enough perennial forage to support a small 

herd but periodically produce large amounts 

of springtime forage from annual plants can 

be classed as perennial/ephemeral.

Allotments that typically produce little 

perennial forage and where livestock use 

depends on forage production from 

springtime annuals can be classed as 

ephemeral.

The "Special Ephemeral Rule" was 

developed to determine when allotments 

should be classified as either Ephemeral or 

Perennial/Ephemeral. That rule is described 

in the Rangeland Management section 

of Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas in Chapter 2. There are four 

Ephemeral permits in the planning areas.

All the rest are either Perennial or 

Perennial/Ephemeral. Sheep are currently 

authorized on three allotments (one 

allotment on the monument), goats are 

authorized on one allotment and all the rest 

are authorized cattle or horses.

Grazing permits or leases authorize the use 

of lands for grazing. A grazing permit 

authorizes grazing on public or other lands 

administered by BLM within grazing 

districts under Section 3 of the TGA. A 

grazing lease authorizes grazing use on 

public or other lands administered by BLM 

outside of grazing districts under Section 15 

of the TGA.

Within allotments, seasonal grazing may be 

required in some pastures. Moreover, 

grazing practices may be managed to 

achieve resource or grazing objectives, as 

described in the allotment grazing permit or

lease.

3.12 Mineral 

Resources

BLM manages the minerals on many lands 

beyond those where BLM manages the 

surface. Areas where the land surface and 

subsurface minerals are under different 

ownership are referred to as split estate 

lands. Acreage totals in this section account 

for the subsurface mineral lands.

BLM administers programs that allow 

production of three types of minerals and 

energy resources on public lands. These 

mineral assets fit into categories of saleable, 

locatable, and leasable minerals. Saleable 

minerals include sand, gravel, and other 

common minerals. Locatable minerals 

consist of precious metals such as gold, 

silver, and some industrial minerals such as 

gypsum and some clay. Fuels such as oil, 

gas, coal, and certain other substances are 

leasable minerals.

The minerals' planning area (Map 1-2) 

extends far to the north and east beyond 

the boundaries of the planning areas. Map 

2-10, provides a more detailed look at 

current minerals management in the 

immediate environs of the planning areas. 

The minerals planning area is the area with 

federally administered minerals, where the 

surface rights are held by BLM, the State of 

Arizona, or private parties, and located 

within the administrative boundaries of 

BLM's Phoenix District but are not being 

planned for in the Sonoran Desert National 

Monument RMP and Phoenix South RMP 

Revision. 

The planning areas sit astride three geologic 

provinces. The Colorado Plateau Province 

includes the northern third of 

Arizona, bounded on the south by the 

Mogollon Rim. Scattered BLM-
 

Chapter 3

440

administered public lands outside the 

planning areas are located in this province.

Nearly horizontal, stratified, eroded 

sedimentary rocks characterize this 

province.

The Transition Zone Province bisects 

Arizona from northwest to southeast and is 

present in the central portion of the planning 

areas. The Transition Zone is a geologically 

complex area where the monocline and 

uplift tectonic characteristics of the 

Colorado Plateau are developed on 

Precambrian basement rocks and Mesozoic 

granitic rocks, and complicated by extensive 

block faulting encompassing and/or overlain 

by Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks.

Covering the southern portion of the 

planning areas, the Basin and Range 

Province features northwest-trending blockfaulted mountain ranges separated by deep, 

alluvium-filled basins. Mountain ranges in 

the planning area generally consist of 

Precambrian (Proterozoic) to Tertiary 

igneous, or metamorphic rocks bounded by 

block-faulted and folded Mesozoic to 

Cenozoic sedimentary rocks or Tertiary 

volcanic rocks. The deep intermontane 

basins generally contain slightly altered 

Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks 

overlain by Tertiary sedimentary and 

volcanic sequences.

Geologic conditions are suitable for the 

potential occurrence of leasable fluid 

minerals, which include the energy minerals 

oil and gas and the nonenergy mineral 

carbon dioxide (CO2). Mature petroleum 

source rocks are present in Tertiary 

evaporites in the southern portions of the 

planning areas. Sandstone and limestone 

contain reservoir-quality porosity for fluid 

minerals to accumulate beneath structural 

and within stratigraphic traps in the northern 

scattered lands.

Sodium and coal are leasable solid mineral 

resources. Sodium may be present in deep 

evaporite deposits in Tertiary basins 

throughout the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, and is extracted near Luke. 

There are no reported coal resources in the 

planning areas.

Five areas of potential sodium exist in the 

planning area subsurface. There has been no 

significant development of those resources 

and no indications for future leasing and 

development. The absence of sodium 

leasing in the planning area (except in the 

Luke Basin) is probably due to the limited 

demand for sodium and the great expense of 

exploring and developing it. Morton Salt is 

solution mining salt for industrial purposes 

from the Luke salt deposit. BLM has one 

lease with Morton for solution mining on the 

Luke deposit.

There are no known viable sources of 

leasable minerals in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, but all land in 

the area is now open to mineral leasing.

Sites north of the planning area within the 

Phoenix District do have some potential for 

exploration.

Geothermal energy resource potential exists 

throughout the planning area. A high 

potential for occurrence exists for using lowtemperature geothermal energy in 16 

geothermal resource areas. Most of these 

resource areas are defined by multiple water 

well fields, but these fields have not been 

developed. Moderate potential for 

occurrence of geothermal energy is 

also present throughout southern Arizona, 

which has several isolated geothermal 

wells. The potential for fluid, gaseous, and 

solid leasables (including geothermal 

energy) is shown on the Map 3-14.

Five low-temperature geothermal resource 

regions are recognized in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. These regions 

are shown as moderate potential areas on 

Map 3-14. There has been no significant 

development of geothermal resources. These 

low-temperature resources might be used for 
 

Chapter 3

441

small-scale space heating and for resort 

spas.

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

has no geothermal energy leases and no 

indications for future leasing. The absence 

of geothermal leasing probably results from 

the limited uses for low-temperature 

resources and the great expense to explore 

and develop them.

The potential for oil and gas leasing is low 

throughout the minerals planning area, the 

potential for leasing is low. The potential is 

somewhat higher in the areas north of 35 

degrees north latitude.

Oil and gas exploration was active in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area from 

1913 to the 1980s. No oil and gas 

development has occurred on public lands, 

and no proven reserves have been 

documented. There is now no leasing 

interest. However, areas of moderate oil and 

gas potential do exist (Map 3-14).

The price of crude oil was a significant 

driving force for increased oil and gas 

exploration in the 1970s. The 1980s saw 

active exploration in the Basin and Range 

Physiographic Province of Arizona to test 

the Laramide Overthrust Trend. There has 

been no drilling since the 1980s. A trend 

toward increasing exploration is occurring 

throughout the United States as the active 

rig count increases with rising crude oil 

prices. Thus, there is potential for domestic 

crude demand to stimulate oil and gas 

exploration in the mineral planning area.

Locatable minerals exist throughout 

the planning areas, including porphyry 

copper, volcanic-epithermal, placer, vein, 

vein/replacement, and alteration of 

sedimentary rocks. Past mining for metallic 

minerals has mainly produced gold, silver, 

copper, lead, zinc, tin, and uranium. There 

is potential for occurrence of those and other 

metallic minerals and a high potential for 

occurrence of nonmetallic minerals. There 

are few active locatable mineral operations.

The potential for locatable minerals 

is shown on Map 3-15.

Mineral districts in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area are regions of 

known occurrences of and high potential for 

locatable metallic and nonmetallic minerals 

(Map 3-15). Most of the mines have been 

inactive for many years because the cost to 

mine the commodity exceeds the 

commodity‘s market value. Several smallscale locatable mines now operate in the 

planning area. These mines generally 

operate on a sporadic basis, depending on 

market conditions and financial support.

These operations focus on placer gold, lode 

gold, and some industrial minerals.

Saleable mineral materials are found at 

Precambrian to Tertiary rock outcrops and in 

extensive Quaternary deposits of alluvial 

sand and gravel, piedmont alluvium, 

colluvium, and eolian sand throughout the 

planning areas. Pits, quarries, and prospects 

for saleable minerals are mapped to show 

the potential for occurrence of saleable 

mineral resources. These saleable minerals 

have high potential to be found in the 

planning areas (Map 3-16).

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

has many locations for saleable mineral 

resources. Known occurrences (quarries and 

pits), prospects, and potential locations for 

saleable material on BLM-administered 

lands are shown on Map 3-16. Those 

locations have high potential for saleable 

mineral resources because they are known to 

occur. Most of the locations are actively 

used for dimension stone, decorative rock, 

or local construction.

BLM managed mineral resources include 

minerals underlying BLM-managed surface, 

as well as thousands of acres of mineral 

estate beneath land surface that is owned by 

others, including State and private lands.
 

Chapter 3

442

Minerals development in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area involves mainly 

saleable materials, particularly because of 

the area‘s closeness to a rapidly urbanizing 

area that places demands on materials such 

as sand, gravel, and decorative rock.

3.13 Fire 

Management

After the devastating wildfire season of 

1994, the Federal Government created a 

single Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy and Program Review (WFMP) (BLM 

2001b), establishing uniform Federal 

policies and programs, which essentially 

are given the assumption that wildland fire 

respects no boundaries and firefighting 

resources, are relatively meager.

The development of these principles and 

policies, which led to the development of a 

National Fire Plan (NFP) in 2000, assisted 

the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior in responding to severe wildland 

fires, reducing fire impacts on rural 

communities and ensuring effective 

firefighting in the future.

Implementing the National Fire Plan and 

its 10-year comprehensive strategy requires 

action at the national, regional, and local 

levels. The National Interagency Fire 

Center (NIFC), in Boise, Idaho, houses 

seven Federal agencies that work 

cooperatively to support firefighting and 

other natural-disaster relief work across the 

country.

The Southwest Area is one of 11 geographic 

areas established by NIFC to provide 

regional management of wildfires. The 

Southwest Area is managed by the 

Southwest Area Coordinating Group 

(SWCG), which consists of Federal and 

State agencies, including BLM, the U.S. 

Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, and the States of Arizona/New 

Mexico. The SWCG has the overall 

responsibility for the following: 

prioritizing resource allocations 

during times of multiple incidents, 

overseeing the mobilization of 

emergency resources as a whole, 

developing incident management 

teams, and

coordinating information and 

intelligence within the area. 

The Southwest Area is divided into zones 

for local management coordination and 

mobilization of firefighting resources. The 

two planning areas are within the Central 

West Zone.

Within both planning areas are within the 

Phoenix-Kingman Fire Zone. BLM's 

Phoenix District and the Kingman Field 

Offices have developed a joint wildfire 

management strategy, which 

involves delineating fire management 

units and devising management strategies 

based on whether the lands within these 

units are suitable for wildland fire use for 

resource benefit (See Map 3-17 and 

Appendix L, Phoenix/Kingman Zone Fire 

Management Plan 2004).

Areas suitable for wildland fire use for 

resource management benefit include, areas 

where wildland fire is desired, and there are 

few or no constraints for its use. Where 

conditions are suitable, unplanned and 

planned wildfire may be used to achieve 

desired objectives, such as; to improve 

vegetation, wildlife habitat or watershed 

conditions, maintain non-hazardous levels of 

fuels, reduce the hazardous effects of 

unplanned wildland fires and meet resource 

objectives. Where fuel loading is high but 

conditions are not initially suitable for 

wildland fire, fuel loads are reduced by 

mechanical, chemical or biological means to 

reduce hazardous fuels levels and meet 

resource objectives (includes WUI areas).
 

Chapter 3

443

Areas not suitable for wildland fire use for 

resource benefit include areas where 

mitigation and suppression are required to 

prevent direct threats 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 WUI areas) where unplanned ignition 

could have negative effects to ecosystem 

unless some form of mitigation takes place. 

Mitigation may include mechanical, 

biological, chemical or prescribed fire 

means to maintain non-hazardous levels of 

fuels reducing the hazardous effects of 

unplanned wildland fires and meeting 

resource objectives. The allocation of lands 

is based on the Desired Future Condition of 

vegetation communities, ecological 

conditions, and ecological risks. The 

allocation of lands is determined by 

contrasting current and historical conditions 

and ecological risks associated with any 

changes (Map 3-17). The condition class 

concept helps describe alterations in key 

ecosystem components, such as species 

composition, structural stage, stand age, 

canopy closure, and fuel loadings. BLM's 

Fire Management Plans include the two 

allocations and identify areas for including 

fire use, mechanical, biological or chemical 

means to maintain non-hazardous levels of 

fuels, reduce the hazardous effects of 

unplanned wildland fires and meet resource 

objectives. Additionally, they identify areas 

for exclusion from fire (through fire 

suppression), chemical, mechanical, and/or 

biological treatments.

3.14 Wild Burros

Upon passage of the 1971 Wild FreeRoaming Horse and Burro Act, BLM 

became responsible for protecting wild 

horses and burros and their habitats.

Following the act, BLM was directed 

to delineate herd areas (HAs) where animals 

were known to occur. Within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, two herd areas 

were found, to surrounding Lake Pleasant 

and to occur in the area spanning the 

Harquahala and Big Horn Mountains. Agua 

Fria National Monument has no wild horse 

and burro areas (Map 2-5.).

The Phoenix RMP (BLM 1988a) 

determined that the herd area around Lake 

Pleasant was manageable and established a 

herd management area (HMA). The 

management of wild horses and burros on 

public land requires the following:

removing nuisance animals from 

adjacent private or State land when 

requested, 

preparing a herd management plan, 

maintaining a herd inventory, and

removing and disposing of excess 

animals through public adoption, if 

possible.

BLM prepared a herd management (April 

1999) plan for the Lake Pleasant HMA.

The Lake Pleasant HMA, containing 80,800 

acres, lies 25 miles northwest of Phoenix, 

partly within the city of Peoria and partly in 

unincorporated Maricopa and Yavapai 

Counties. The HMA consists of 80,800 

acres of Sonoran Desert, mainly with 

paloverde and mixed cacti vegetation types.

The HMA's overall capacity, referred to as 

the appropriate management level (AML), is 

208 burros. Determined using resource 

inventory and monitoring information, the 

AML is used to manage an ecological 

balance between a viable herd population 

and a healthy habitat that provides a stable 

source of forage.

The Harquahala HA, containing 156,255 

acres, is located in western Maricopa 

County within the Harquahala Management 

Unit. It contains portions of the Harquahala

Mountains, Big Horn Mountains, and 

Hummingbird Springs Wilderness Areas.

The herd size in the HA is estimated to be 

less than 50 animals. Its vegetation is a mix 

of creosote-bursage, mixed paloverde, and 
 

Chapter 3

444

cacti communities. The Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan (BLM 1983) 

suggested the removal of all the burros in 

this herd area. A manageability analysis 

(Appendix G) concluded that the 

Harquahala burro herd is not a viable option 

for a herd management area over the long 

term because of genetic diversity, limited 

water sources, forage requirements that 

result in the animals traveling outside of the 

area to private farm lands and state managed 

lands

Both areas had a census in 1999, and herd 

numbers for the HMA and the HA are as 

follows:

Lake Pleasant HMA 206 burros 

Harquahala HA 47 burros 

In these areas, no other landowners or 

managers similarly manage wild horses and 

burros. No animals are moved from one 

HMA to another. 

3.15 Social and 

Economic 

Conditions

3.15.1 Population and 

Household 

Characteristics 

This section summarizes socioeconomic 

data collected for the baseline 

socioeconomic analysis of the planning 

areas prepared in January 2003, by James 

Kent Associates (JKA). For purposes of this 

analysis, Maricopa and Yavapai Counties 

represent the economic study areas because 

they include the areas where direct social or 

economic impacts of planning decisions 

would likely occur.

BLM contracted separately with JKA to 

develop more specific socioeconomic 

information. This more specific data are

provided, when suitable, as part of the 

socioeconomic analysis of the study area.

JKA developed data subdivided by human 

resource units (HRUs) (Map 3-18). HRUs, 

as defined by JKA, identify the ―sense of 

place or community‖ with which local 

residents identify, and in which the many 

daily routines of everyday life take place.

Correlating U.S. Census data with the local 

human geography (i.e. HRUs) allows for 

data interpretation that is more meaningful 

and helps to reveal a region's diversity that 

might not otherwise be apparent. The 

planning areas have five HRUs: 

Wickenburg, Prescott, Lake Pleasant, 

Phoenix, and Buckeye.

Table 3-5 highlights the changes in 

population and household levels in the 

planning areas. Between 1990 and 2000, 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties experienced 

significant population increases.

The Lake Pleasant HRU showed the greatest 

increase in population of all the HRUs, with 

a growth rate of 148 percent. The 

Wickenburg HRU, at 28 percent, 

experienced the least amount of growth.

Combined, the HRUs within the planning 

areas averaged a 71 percent growth rate 

between 1990 and 2000. This rate compares 

with a 40 percent growth rate for the State of 

Arizona, a 45 percent growth rate in 

Maricopa County, and a 56 percent growth 

rate in Yavapai County. This growth trend 

is also reflected in the total number of 

households, which increased simultaneously 

with the population. As shown in Table 3-6, 

between 1990 and 2000 total housing units 

increased in all HRUs, with the greatest 

increase again occurring in the Lake 

Pleasant HRU. Concurrently, the average 

value of these housing units increased in all 

HRUs, with the greatest increase in value 

also occurring within the Lake Pleasant and 

Buckeye HRUs.
 

Chapter 3

445

3.15.2 Employment and 

Earnings 

The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau 

of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates 

annual employment and earnings for 

counties throughout the United States. To 

examine trends in employment by industry 

over this period, data was obtained from 

BEA on total annual employment for each 

county within the study area and Arizona.

Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 on the following 

page, summarize, by industry, the 

percentage of employment and earnings for 

2000 for the economic study area.

The categories of Services, Retail/Wholesale 

Trade, and Manufacturing provided the 

largest contributions to both employment 

and earnings. Services, Retail, and 

Wholesale Trade, Construction, and the 

combined Finance, Insurance, and Real 

Estate (FIRE) category showed large 

increases in earnings from 1990–2000.

Farm and Agricultural-Related Services and 

Mining had very small increases in earnings 

during the same period and represented 

relatively low earnings during 2000.

The services category includes 

professional/technical services, management 

services, education, accommodations/food 

service, entertainment/recreation services, 

and health care/social assistance. Trade 

includes businesses involved directly with

wholesale/retail enterprise. Both the 

Services/Retail and Wholesale Trade 

categories reflect economic activity related

to growth, tourist, and visitor activity in both 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. The FIRE 

and Construction categories include 

businesses and employment that would be 

expected to increase as a result of the high 

rate of population growth experienced in 

both Maricopa and Yavapai Counties over 

the past decade.

The average earnings per job in Maricopa 

County increased from $32,456 in 1970 to 

$35,744 in 2000. The figures for Yavapai 

County showed a decline in earnings from 

$28,493 in 1970 to $22,925 in 2000 

(Sonoran Institute 2003). 

Earnings from mining in the two counties in 

the planning areas increased from 

$444,623,000 in 1992 to $727,712,000 in 

2000. Mining employment has also 

increased by 74 percent during the same 

period. However, mining employment and 

earnings represent a relatively low 

percentage for the planning areas 

(Employment is 0.2 percent; earnings are 0.2 

percent).

Table 3-7. Employment by Sector (by Percent )

Sector Maricopa 

County

Yavapai 

County

Farm, Agricultural 

Services, Forestry, and 

Other

1.7 2.4

Mining 0.6 2.2

Construction 7.5 10.3

Manufacturing 9.0 5.8

Transportation and 

Public Utilities

4.9 2.6

Retail and Wholesale 

Trade

22.0 22.6

Finance, Insurance, and 

Real Estate

11.0 8.8

Services 33.4 33.1

Government 9.9 12.2

Total Employment 1,896,035 71,985

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of 

Economic Analysis
 

Chapter 3

446

3.15.3 Unemployment

Changes in the labor force and 

unemployment rates can provide 

information on the status of the local 

economy. Average unemployment rates are 

shown in Table 3-9. Unemployment rates 

have generally declined in both counties 

within the study area and are consistent with 

rates for Arizona as a whole. 

3.15.4 Property Valuation 

Table 3-10 summarizes property valuations 

for each county. The Arizona Department 

of Revenue assigns values to utilities, 

airlines, railroads, mines, communications, 

and pipelines. These are referred to as 

"Centrally Valued Properties." Counties are 

responsible for assessing other classes of 

property, including residential, commercial, 

industrial, and agricultural properties, which 

are referred to as "Locally Assessed 

Properties." For tax year 2003, the net 

valuation of property assessed by the State 

of Arizona was $7,158,828,578 for the two 

counties. Also, total net local assessments 

for tax year 2003 equaled $19,805,829,810 

for the two counties. 

A source of local government revenue 

directly attributable to the public lands in 

each of the counties consists of payments in 

lieu of taxes (PILT). BLM administers 

PILT payments, which are provided by the 

Federal Government to offset tax revenues 

lost because of tax-exempt Federal land in 

their jurisdictions. PILT payments are used 

for a number of purposes, to 

include; support community services such as 

firefighting and police protection, and to 

provide health care in rural communities. 

Congress appropriates funds for PILT 

Table 3-8. Earnings by Sector (by Percent)

Sector Maricopa 

County

Yavapai 

County

Farm, Agricultural 

Services, Forestry, 

and Other

1.0 1.9

Mining 0.1 2.7

Construction 7.7 14.6

Manufacturing 13.9 7.6

Transportation 

and Public 

Utilities

6.1 3.5

Retail and 

Wholesale Trade

17.6 16.9

Finance, 

Insurance, and 

Real Estate

11.4 5.9

Services 31.0 28.8

Government 11.2 18.1

Total Earnings $67,771,606 $1,650,234

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of 

Economic Analysis

Table 3-9. Unemployment

County Human Resource Unit (HRU)

Arizona Maricopa Yavapai Wickenburg Prescott Lake Pleasant Phoenix Buckeye

1990

Number 123,902 64,742 2,655 282 1,845 2,019 61,133 907

Percent 7.1 4 3 4 2 2 4 6

2000

Number 133,368 70,931 3,616 175 1,614 4,651 64,567 925

Percent 3.4 3 3 2 2 2 3 3

Note: HRUs represent distinct areas and do not necessarily coincide with jurisdictional boundaries. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and JKA.
 

Chapter 3

447

payments to eligible units of local 

government each year. BLM calculates the 

amount of payments using a formula based 

on population and the amount of Federal 

land in a particular local jurisdiction. 

These payments are in addition to Federal 

revenues transferred to local governments 

under other programs, such as income 

generated from timber harvests, mineral 

receipts, and the use of Federal land for 

livestock grazing.

Table 3-11 shows the PILT payments to 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties from BLM 

during for the period of 1999-2003.

3.15.5 Recreation and 

Tourism

Increased interest in recreation over the past 

decade combined with a large increase in 

population in the Phoenix metropolitan area 

and within the planning areas; has resulted 

in heavy use of BLM's lands for recreation.

Currently BLM collects data on visitation to 

BLM-managed lands through visitor 

registers at trailheads and recreation sites, 

and with vehicle counters at a few key 

locations. BLM's staff noted an increase in 

the recreation use of public lands through 

analysis of the data and through personal 

observation.

National trends in recreation and 

tourism show a continued expansion of the 

tourism and recreation sector (American 

Recreation Coalition 2001). Recreation use 

of BLM's lands is correspondingly expected 

to increase at a significant rate (Cabe and 

Coupal 2001). Understanding the economic 

importance of recreation use in this area is 

critical to proper planning for resource 

protection, economic sustainability, and 

quality of life. 

Employment provided by recreation and 

tourism is typically classed within the 

Service and Trade sectors. These sectors 

also provide diversification to the local 

economy. They typically reflect the 

following:

a growing population involved in 

retail and commercial businesses, 

a visitor population that uses local 

services, and

increasing numbers of retirees as a 

segment of the population that 

brings money into the 

economy through transfer payments 

and local spending. 

During 2000, total service and trade 

earnings in Maricopa and Yavapai Counties 

were $33 billion. During 2000, about 1.1 

million workers in the service and trade 

sectors earned an average of $32,000.

Recreation in the planning areas will 

continue to increase due to State and 

regional population growth, as well as an 

aging population that may demand increased 

opportunities for leisure and recreation. 

Table 3-10. 2002 Primary Property Tax Levies

County

Net Assessed 

Valuation State County

Cities & 

Towns

Community 

Colleges Schools All Other Total

Primary 

Rate

Maricopa 

$24,457,047,282 $0

$31,721,52

1 $175,207,012 $36,526,312 $603,369,737 $113,194,334 $960,018,916 3.93

Yavapai

$1,450,497,580 $0 $3,072,096 $1,667,615 $5,735,780 $12,506,662 $18,727,476 $41,709,629 2.88

Source: Arizona Department of 

Revenue, 2002 Annual Report 
 

Chapter 3

448

OHV use constitutes a rapidly growing 

recreation use of BLM's lands. Between 

1997 and 2002, the number of OHVs sold in 

Arizona increased from 7,964 to 23,568 

vehicles. The direct economic impact to 

Yavapai County from OHV recreation is an 

estimated $183 million per year and to 

Maricopa County exceeds $1.358 billion per 

year (Silberman 2003).

The following are facts concerning OHV use 

in Yavapai and Maricopa Counties (Arizona 

State Parks 2003):

A total of 27 percent of Yavapai 

County households are OHV users, 

compared to 21 percent statewide.

A total of 19 percent of Maricopa 

County households are OHV users.

OHV use supports more than 15,000 

jobs in both counties. 

OHV recreation accounts for more 

than two billion dollars per year in 

the two counties.

The equestrian industry, including selfhoused, self-boarded, and commercially 

boarded horses, represents a significant 

contribution to the economic base of the 

planning areas. Estimated annual direct 

expenditures in the above activities, using 

calculations from ―A Partial Economic 

Impact Analysis of Arizona‘s Horse 

Industry‖ (Beattie and others 2001), is $8.5 

million for the Wickenburg area alone.

Impact on the broader Wickenburg area 

economy is about $14 million. Equestrian 

use, boarding stables, and retail have strong 

roots throughout the greater Phoenix area 

and in adjacent towns and communities that 

use BLM's lands for recreation.

3.15.6 RanchingAgriculture

Farming and ranching have historically been 

significant contributors to the Arizona 

economy. In recent years, extensive 

population growth within the planning areas 

have resulted in loss of agricultural land and 

increased conflicts with farm and ranch 

operations.

The United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural 

Statistics Service reports livestock 

production statistics for all counties. Data 

for Maricopa and Yavapai Counties for 

livestock receipts during 1999 through 2002 

shows that inventories of cattle remained 

fairly constant during this four year period 

(see Figure 3-1). In 2002, a total of 36,000 

head of cattle were raised in these two 

counties. The period from 1999 to 2002 

experienced the following: 

Cattle inventories remained fairly 

constant, 

Cash receipts for livestock 

averaged $500,000 per year, and

Total agricultural product receipts 

averaged $900,000 per year. 

Cash receipts from crops were relatively low 

in Yavapai County (about one percent of the 

total for the two counties). Receipts from 

cattle represented a more significant portion 

of the receipts (nine percent of the total for 

the two counties).

Total net income from farming and ranching 

in Maricopa County rose from 1970 to 1985, 

Table 3-11. Payments in Lieu of Taxes

County 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Maricopa $969,069 $1,019,264 $1,465,414 $1,539,003 $1,725,495

Yavapai $879,521 $973,796 $1,417,178 $1,473,737 $1,359,624

Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management
 

Chapter 3

449

and then dropped steadily to the year 2000.

In Yavapai County, net income dropped 

from $9 million (1970) to $2.8 million 

(1986), and then rose to $9.7 million in 

2000.

3.16 Environmental 

Justice

In 1994, the President of the United States 

issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations."

The objectives of the executive order 

include the following:

develop Federal agency 

implementation strategies, 

identify minority and low-income 

populations where proposed Federal 

actions could have

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental 

effects, and

encourage the participation of 

minority and low-income 

populations in the NEPA process. 

Two types of data must be reviewed to 

evaluate environmental justice effects: 

minority populations and income levels.

Minority and income level data for the 

HRUs were obtained from the 2000 census 

data.

3.16.1 Minority 

Populations within the 

Planning Areas 

According to U.S. Census Bureau for 2000, 

the combined minority population of 

the planning areas averaged 23.9 percent of 

the population. Arizona has a similar 

minority population rate of 24.4 

percent. Table 3-12 which is located in the 

additional tables sections of the document, 

shows minority populations by different 

areas in the planning areas. 

The planning areas were analyzed at a 

block-group level to determine where 

higher-than-average minority populations 

lived. Minority populations were identified 

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

but not within Agua Fria National 

Monument. The largest minority population 

was located to the west and southwest of 

Wickenburg. Other portions of the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area with 

significant minority populations included the 

following:

a small parcel of tribal land just 

outside Prescott, 

an area extending along Interstate 

60 near the towns of Circle City and 

Wittmann, and

several populations scattered 

throughout the northwest Phoenix 

metropolitan area.

Using the county averages for comparisons, 

each Human Resource Unit (HRU) and 

Community Resource Unit (CRU) was 

evaluated to determine whether the 

percentage of minority population was 

greater than the county average. If HRU or 

CRU percentages exceeded the county 

averages, they were evaluated for 

environmental justice effect on the basis of 

their minority population and income levels.

Table 4-9 shows HRUs and CRUs whose 

percentage of Hispanic populations and 

percentage of populations living below the 

federally mandated poverty level exceed 

those of their counties. Minority 

populations and poverty are the two criteria 

for an environmental justice analysis.

The only HRU in Yavapai County with 

minority populations that exceed the county 

average is the Wickenburg HRU. The 

percent of Hispanics in the Wickenburg 
 

Chapter 3

450

HRU (11 percent) exceeds the Yavapai 

County percentage of Hispanics (10 percent) 

by only 1 percent. In the Wickenburg HRU, 

the percentage of Hispanics in the Aguila 

CRU (16 percent) exceeds the Yavapai 

County percentage of Hispanics by six

percent.

The percentage of Hispanics in the Phoenix 

HRU (27 percent) exceeds the Maricopa 

County percentage of Hispanics (25 percent) 

by two percent. In the Phoenix HRU, the 

percentage of Hispanics in the community of 

Tolleson (78 percent) exceeds the Maricopa 

County percentage of Hispanics by 53 

percent.

The percentage of Hispanics in the Buckeye 

HRU (26 percent) exceeds the Maricopa 

County percentage of Hispanics (25 percent) 

by 1 percent. In the Buckeye HRU, the 

percentage of Hispanics in the Buckeye 

CRU (28 percent) exceeds the Maricopa 

County percentage of Hispanics by three

percent, and the West Tonopah CRU (32 

percent) exceeds the Maricopa County 

percentage of Hispanics by 7 percent.

3.16.2 Low-Income 

Populations within the 

Planning Areas 

According to U.S. Census Bureau for 2000, 

11.4 percent of the total population within 

the planning areas was below the poverty 

level. Within Arizona, 13.9 percent of the 

total population was below the poverty 

level. The entire population within Agua 

Fria National Monument was statistically 

below the poverty level. Additionally, most 

of the west, northwest, and northeast 

portions of the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area were classified as below the 

poverty level. Table 3-13 shows 

populations below poverty level by county 

and HRU. 

Using the county averages for 

comparisons, the percentage of persons 

living below the poverty level for each HRU 

and CRU was compared to the county 

average. If HRU or CRU percentages 

exceeded the county averages, they were 

evaluated for environmental justice effect on 

the basis of their income levels. 

Table 4-9 shows HRUs and CRUs whose 

percentage of Hispanic populations and 

percentage of populations living below the 

federally mandated poverty level exceed 

those of their counties.

The Wickenburg HRU (14 percent) exceeds 

Yavapai County (12 percent) by 2 percent.

Table 3-13. Persons Below Poverty Level

Persons Below Poverty 

Level (BPL) Arizona

Maricopa 

County

Yavapai 

County

Wickenbur

g Prescott

Lake 

Pleasant Phoenix Buckeye

 1990 Population BPL 564,362 257,359 14,308 1,370 8,999 9,424 239,334 5,330

 % of population BPL **16 12 13 16 15 8 12 24

 2000 Population BPL 698,669 355,668 19,552 1,484 9,286 13,700 332,297 6,153

 % of population BPL **14 12 12 14 10 4 12 15

 Notes: ** Percentage of persons living below the poverty level was determined by dividing population below poverty 

level by total population of county or HRU as appropriate.

 HRUs represent distinct areas and do not necessarily coincide with jurisdictional boundaries. 

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and JKA.
 

Chapter 3

451

In the Wickenburg HRU, both the Aguila 

CRU (20 percent) and Yarnell CRU (16 

percent) exceed the county level by eight 

percent and four percent, respectively.

While the Prescott HRU is lowerthan that of 

the county‘s, in the Prescott HRU, the Agua 

Fria CRU (15 percent) exceeds the county 

level by three percent.

The Phoenix HRU (13 percent) exceeds the 

Maricopa County level (12 percent) by one 

percent. The Buckeye HRU (17 percent) 

exceeds the Maricopa County level by 5 

percent.

3.17 Health and 

Safety

BLM has several programs that guide 

management to protect public health, safety, 

and property. These responsibilities include 

such activities as identifying abandoned 

mine lands (AML), protecting lands from 

illegal dumping of solid and hazardous 

materials, preventing theft of Federal 

property or misuse of resources, and 

managing wildfire. The proximity of the 

AFNM and Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area to metropolitan Phoenix, along with 

the accelerated growth of Maricopa County 

over the past two decades, has put 

considerable user pressure on these lands, 

emphasizing the need for BLM to develop 

and implement additional strategies for 

protecting the health and safety of visitors.

3.17.1 Abandoned Mine 

Lands

Due to the high level of mining in and

around the Bradshaw Mountains, thousands 

of abandoned mines are potentially within 

the planning areas. Most of these mines are 

unmarked, unfenced, and pose serious or 

fatal risks to humans who may accidentally 

come upon them or deliberately seek them.

In addition, hazardous materials are present 

at some of the abandoned mines.

Since 1992, BLM has teamed with the 

Arizona State Mine Inspector and 

Federal/State agencies, to evaluate the need 

for clean-up and closure of abandoned mine 

sites that pose safety risks to visitors; or are 

causing environmental damage. Since that 

time, about 9,000 sites throughout the State 

have been inventoried and mapped (Arizona 

State Mine Inspector 2002). Additionally, 

BLM has joined an aggressive program to 

heighten public awareness of the safety and 

environmental hazards of abandoned mine 

lands.

A total of 957 abandoned mines were 

documented and mapped within the the 

planning areas. Map 3-19 shows the 

distribution of these mines. Through the 

Abandoned Mine Lands program, the 

following mines were fenced (Arizona State 

Mine Inspector 2001):

New River-Black Canyon Mines in 

June 2000, 

Mayer Shafts in Yavapai County in 

November 2000, 

Prescott and Humboldt Mines in 

March 2001, and

King Midas and Morgan Butte 

Mines in June 2001. 

3.17.2 Hazardous 

Materials 

BLM‘s Hazardous Materials program 

addresses both solid and hazardous wastes, 

in accordance with the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

and the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). These acts provide 

comprehensive guidance to BLM for 

performing required assessments, 

monitoring, pollution prevention, 

recordkeeping, reporting, response actions, 

and training on a timely basis. BLM is also 
 

Chapter 3

452

responsible for compliance with Federal, 

State, interstate, and local regulations.

Waste is defined to include solid and 

hazardous waste, hazardous materials, and 

hazardous substances, as defined by the 

statutes reference in 518 DM 2.3 

(Department of Interior - Department 

Manual). Site-specific hazardous material 

inventories are completed when lands are 

either acquired or disposed. BLM cannot 

acquire contaminated lands unless directed 

by Congress, court mandate, or as 

determined by the Secretary of the Interior 

(602 DM 2). Land disposal actions must 

comply with disclosure requirements in 40 

CFR 373. 

A total of 637 hazardous materials 

occurrences were found in the planning 

areas, mostly in the Phoenix metropolitan 

area (Map 3-20). Six of the 637 hazardous 

material sites are on BLM-administered 

lands. Five of the sites are leaking 

underground storage tanks, and one site is an 

inactive solid waste landfill. These sites are 

listed in Table 3-14.

3.18 Travel 

Management

Travel designations for the planning area 

vary based on the management plan in 

effect. Where the travel designation is Open 

or Limited to Existing Roads and Trails, 

route proliferation at some level has 

occurred over time. A route inventory is 

currently being conducted on the entire 

planning area to build a route network 

database for planning. The inventory is 

scheduled to be complete by January 2006. 

Routes are inventoried using GPS 

equipment mounted on motorcycle, ATV, 

truck or on foot. The data collected includes 

route type, level of use, points of interest 

along the route and a photo is taken on each

route. Route inventory crews review the 

routes to screen out random cross country 

travel from actual existing routes. Under 

current management in the planning areas, a 

total of 2,240 miles of routes have been 

identified. A current portrayal of the route

Table 3-14. Summary of Hazardous Materials Sites on BLM-Managed Lands within the Planning Area

First 

Search ID

Database Site Name Site Location County

0-000288 LUST ADOT Cordes Junction 

Maintenance Yard

I-17 MP 263 & Junction State Route 69 

Mayer, Ariz. 86333

Yavapai

0-000937 LUST Texaco #23 I-17 Highway 69 Intersection Cordes 

Junction, Ariz. 86333

Yavapai

0-002602 LUST Carioca/Cordes Junction 

Chevron

I-17 & Highway 69 Cordes Junction, Ariz. 

86333

Yavapai

0-002736 LUST Sunward/JSJ Mining Co West 11701 West Indian School Road Phoenix, 

Ariz. 85038

Maricopa

0-003625 LUST Canyon Service Center 34400 Old Black Canyon Highway Black 

Canyon City, Ariz. 85324

Yavapai

SW17 SWLF Sundog Ranch* 1.3 miles Northeast of AZ 89 on Sundog 

Ranch Road, Prescott, Ariz.

Yavapai

Notes: * Site is inactive

ADOT - Arizona Department of Transportation MP - Milepost

LUST - Leaking Underground Storage Tank SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill
 

Chapter 3

453

inventory can be found on maps 3-21, 3-22, 

3-23, 3-24 3-25, 3-26. 

Upon completion of the Resource 

Management Plans, the route network that 

will continue to be managed by BLM will be 

determined using a structured route 

evaluation process such as that described in 

Appendix D - Route Evaluation and 

Designation Process. Decisions of which 

specific routes will be open, closed, or 

somehow limited to continued vehicular use 

are implementation actions that will be made 

through a separate process.
 

454
Chapter Four
Chapter 4

456

Chapter 4 -

Environmental 

Consequences

4.1 Introduction

Chapter 4 analyzes the environmental impacts of 

implementing each Alternative described in 

Chapter 2. The affected environment 

described in Chapter 3 comprises the baseline 

used for projecting impacts. Management that 

could affect resources or resource uses has been 

analyzed, and the conclusions drawn from that 

analysis are described for the resource 

consequence section.

Resource Management Plans (RMPs) are 

designed to provide broad guidance and are not 

intended to be site or project specific. Current 

planning guidance allows implementation-level 

decisions to be made in a RMP when suitable.

The impacts discussed in this chapter are 

general, described at a landscape or regional 

level. RMPs are implemented through sitespecific projects and activity plans; these steps 

often require a separate site-specific National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis.

Many management actions are common to 

all Alternatives or to several Alternatives.

Similarly, the impacts of implementing a 

given set of management actions might be 

common to a range of Alternatives or even 

to several seemingly disparate resources and 

uses. When a proposed activity is not 

addressed in a specific section, no impact is 

expected.

4.2 Analytical 

Assumptions

The following general assumptions and 

guidelines were used in the analysis of 

environmental consequences. Other 

assumptions specific to a particular resource are 

presented under that resource.

Funding and personnel would be 

sufficient to implement any of the 

Alternatives as described for Chapter 2. 

The laws, regulations, and policies that 

direct Bureau of Land Management‘s 

(BLM) work would be applied 

consistently and as suitable across all 

Alternatives. 

All Alternatives would maintain 

vegetation resources and meet the need 

for water, nutrients, and energy cycling. 

The approved RMP would remain in 

effect for 15 to 20 years. The first year 

that the RMP would be in effect would 

be 2008. For items that were analyzed 

over time, the analysis was carried out 

to 2028. 

County populations for 2008 and 2028

would be as reported in the projections 

used in this RMP. Population

projections for Maricopa and Yavapai 

Counties for 2005 were calculated by 

extrapolation from the year 2000 Census 

and the official Arizona Department of 

Economic Security annual population 

estimate for 2003. For the year 2028, 

this RMP uses the Maricopa Association 

of Governments (MAGs) interim 

projections by Municipal Planning Area 

(MPA) in Maricopa County. For the 

year 2028, a projection was developed 

for this RMP for Yavapai County from 

the known deviation between the 1997 

population projection series for future 

years, the year 2000 Census (an actual 

county population that was 110 

percent of the projected population), and 

the Arizona Department of Economic 

Security (DES) population estimate for 

2003 for Yavapai County and its 
Chapter 4

457

incorporated places (an estimated 

county population that was 112 

percent of the projected population). 

Short-term impacts are those expected to 

occur during and within one 

to five years of implementing the 

activity. Long-term impacts are those 

that would occur after the first five years 

of implementation. 

Recreational use in the planning areas 

would continue to increase. A visitoruse study prepared by Arizona State 

University West (Andereck and 

others 2002), lists the general themes of 

recreation. The study was based on 

meetings with focus groups for various 

types of recreation and on surveys of 

recreation users in the planning areas. 

A total of 70 percent of visitors to 

BLM's lands in the planning areas reside 

in Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. The 

analysis assumed that the 70 

percent share would remain constant 

throughout the life of the plan. 

Appendix C lists the laws and 

regulations with which all activities 

must comply and that might limit the 

range of management actions. 

4.3 Types of Effects 

to be Addressed

This chapter describes the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts of implementing Alternative 

A--the No-Action Alternative--and each of the 

four other Alternatives.

The impacts of the planning decisions on the 

visitor's experience would depend on the 

expectations and values of the individual 

visitor. A particular action could benefit some 

users and adversely affect others. The degree of 

impact would also vary relative to user 

sensitivity. Sensitivity would vary among user 

types and might also differ between new users 

and traditional users of a particular resource.

The impact analysis presents effects that might 

enhance or improve a resource as well as those 

that might degrade a resource. Instead of 

analyzing every minor interaction and causeeffect relationship, the impact analyses are 

confined to actions that have direct, immediate, 

and significant effects on the planning areas. 

Cumulative impacts, discussed at the end of the 

chapter, are effects that the Alternatives could 

have in relation to other past, current, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in and 

adjacent to the planning areas. 

4.4 Incomplete or 

Unavailable 

Information

Federal regulations (43 CFR 1502.22) mandate 

that agencies evaluating reasonably foreseeable 

significant adverse effects on the human 

environment, in an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), must discuss incomplete or 

unavailable information if that information is 

essential to a reasoned choice among 

Alternatives. This EIS is based on the best 

available data for each resource.

4.5 Critical Elements 

that will not be 

Addressed

There would be no known adverse impacts on 

certain critical elements of the human 

environment. These elements include prime or 

unique farmlands, floodplains, and hazardous or 

solid waste. This plan has not addressed these 

critical elements because they are not present in 

the planning areas or would not be affected by 

the management activities under the 

Alternatives. These critical elements would be 

considered, as suitable, in site-specific project 

design and implementation processes. Each of 

these excluded elements is discussed below.
Chapter 4

458

Prime and Unique Farmlands: There are no 

prime or unique farmlands or farmlands of 

statewide or local importance on public lands in 

the planning areas. None of the actions in the 

Alternatives analyzed in detail would disturb 

farmlands. Therefore, impacts on prime and 

unique farmlands are not analyzed further.

Floodplains: Although floodplains exist in the 

planning areas, no projects or activities resulting 

in permanent fills or diversions in, or placement 

of permanent facilities, on floodplains of major 

rivers are projected to occur under any of the 

proposed Alternatives. Therefore, impacts on 

floodplains are not analyzed further.

Hazardous and Solid Waste: No hazardous, 

toxic, or unapproved solid waste sites are known 

to occur on public lands in the planning areas.

None of the actions, activities, and uses 

projected to occur with implementing the plan 

Alternatives would require the handling, storage, 

or release of significant amounts of these 

wastes. Therefore, impacts on or from 

hazardous and solid wastes are not analyzed in 

detail.

Indian Trust Assets: Indian trust assets are 

lands, natural resources, money, or other 

tangible assets held by the Federal Government 

in trust or restricted against alienation for Indian 

tribes and individual Indians. BLM has 

determined that the actions described for this 

land use plan would not affect Indian trust 

assets.

4.6 Impacts on 

Special Designations

This analysis covers the suitable Wild and 

Scenic River (WSR) segments of the Agua Fria 

River in Agua Fria National Monument, five 

existing wilderness areas, the Harquahala 

Mountain Summit Road Back Country Byway, 

proposed back country byways, and existing and 

proposed Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC).

The five existing wilderness areas were studied 

and found to have sufficient values of 

naturalness, solitude, and primitive and 

unconfined recreation opportunities to be 

designated by Congress. The values are 

somewhat diminished at the edge of the areas 

because of complex boundaries where different 

land uses occasionally affect core wilderness 

values.

A 1996 Colorado study found that scenic byway 

designation led to an increase in traffic on eight

of 21 new byways. This analysis assumes that 

proposed byways would increase traffic on the 

proposed routes because the routes accentuate 

cultural and scenic resources in the national 

monument and near the Wickenburg area.

4.6.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would create no new Special 

Designations. No impacts are expected to 

proposed suitable WSR segments, ACECs, the 

five wilderness areas, or the Harquahala 

Mountain Summit RoadBack Country Byway.

Perry Mesa and Larry Canyon ACECs in Agua 

Fria National Monument would be maintained.

No impacts are expected because the ACEC 

resources of relevance and importance are 

protected by the Monument Proclamation

(Appendix A).

Alternative B

Designating Bloody Basin Road as a back 

country byway could affect the segments of the 

Agua Fria River suitable for WSR designation 

by increasing traffic and visitor access near the 

river crossing. More traffic and visitor use could 

diminish the scenic and habitat values and alter 

the recreation experience in the corridor. Since 

the road would be maintained to BLM type three 

standard, which would require high-clearance 

vehicles to traverse it, the increase in visitation 

is expected to be small. Byway visitors would 

have their recreational experience enhanced by 
Chapter 4

459

interpretation of Agua Fria National 

Monument‘s resources along the route. 

Intensified traffic and recreation could affect the 

residents of the Horseshoe Ranch because of 

increased visitation, trespass, dust, and road 

maintenance needs. In turn, more visitors and 

traffic could impede pronghorn movement and 

migration.

Establishing the Constellation Mine Road Back 

Country Byway would increase the number of 

visitors along the road as well as to Hassayampa 

River Canyon Wilderness. Vehicular traffic 

would intensify along the byway, adversely 

affecting residents and ranchers residing in the 

area. Increased traffic, dust, road maintenance 

needs, and visitor levels would be expected.

The increase in visitors could degrade the 

Hassayampa River Canyon wilderness 

experience for some visitors by reducing 

solitude opportunities. Conversely, byway 

visitors would have their recreation experience 

enhanced by interpretative signs placed along 

the byway describing resource and cultural 

values, including the area‘s ranching and mining 

history.

No impacts to the Harquahala Mountain Summit 

Road Back Country Byway are expected.

Alternative C

Impacts from designating back country byways 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B.

Finding tributary segments as eligible for 

designation as part of the Agua Fria WSR 

proposal would not affect the now protected and 

suitable WSR corridor in Agua Fria National 

Monument. Interim management protection 

prescriptions would be extended to other river 

tributary segments. This action would prevent 

impairment of any outstandingly remarkable 

values on another 6,600 acres of WSR corridor.

The total area in existing and proposed corridors 

would be 13,100 acres or more than double the 

size of the existing proposed WSR corridor.

Designating four ACECs for protecting Gila 

chub habitat would not affect suitable or 

proposed WSR segments. Management actions 

proposed for the ACECs could be accomplished 

without affecting proposed WSR segments.

The Harquahala Mountain Outstanding Natural 

Area (ONA) ACEC maintains undeveloped 

lands, offers dispersed and resource-dependent 

recreational experiences, enhances natural quiet 

and dark sky conditions, and safeguards wildlife 

habitats and connectivity. Reduced dust from 

limited vehicle travel designations 

could maintain air quality, improving vistas 

from adjoining wildernesses and the Harquahala 

Mountain Summit Back Country Byway.

Alternative D

Designating the Agua Fria Riparian Corridor 

ACEC would not affect segments of the Agua 

Fria River suitable for WSR status. Under 

current WSR interim management, vehicle 

routes and developments might be restricted to 

protect outstandingly remarkable values, 

including riparian habitat and wildlife.

Acquiring land along Indian Creek and 

removing the Perry Mesa and Larry Canyon 

ACECs would not affect the proposed ACEC or 

the Purpose and Significance of Agua Fria 

National Monument. Managing areas for 

wilderness characteristics would add an 

additional layer of protection for the monument 

objects within the Agua Fria National 

Monument.

Impacts on designated wilderness from 

establishing Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC 

would be similar to those described for 

Harquahala Mountain ACEC in Alternative C.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

No impacts to the Harquahala Mountain Summit 

Road Back Country Byway are expected.

Acquiring land along Indian Creek and 

removing the Perry Mesa and Larry Canyon 

ACECs would have no resource impacts on 
Chapter 4

460

segments suitable for wild and scenic river 

status.

Impacts on designated wilderness from 

establishing the Harquahala Mountain ACEC 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C.

The determination that Agua Fria River 

tributaries are eligible for consideration as 

additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System provides an additional impetus for 

protection of wildlife, cultural, and scenic values 

along these eight streams. The protection of 

outstandingly remarkable river values is 

consistent with protective management actions 

identified for the corresponding monument 

values, with the additional provision that the 

streams would be maintained in free-flowing 

condition without major impoundments or 

diversions of water.

4.6.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument disposing of 

land is not an option, and acquiring private lands 

(inholdings) would be consistent with 

management effectiveness and the national 

monument's Purpose and Significance. Disposal 

of lands would not affect any existing wilderness 

area, ACEC, or back country byway.

Acquiring lands within wilderness areas would 

benefit wilderness management by consolidating 

management of all lands within their 

boundaries. This outcome would prevent future 

development of non-Federal lands and retain 

wilderness values.

The Agua Fria WSR Corridor was found 

suitable for designation with the existing utility 

corridor and utilities in place. New utilities 

proposed for the corridor would be subject to 

approval for protecting the resources of the 

Agua Fria National Monument and the interim 

management guidelines of the WSR corridor.

Facilities approved for construction under these 

criteria would not affect the existing WSR 

corridor.

Acquiring lands in the suitable segments of the 

WSR corridor in the national monument could 

benefit the segments by potentially adding more 

lands to the interim nonimpairment status. Such 

acquisitions would prevent the following: 

development on private lands, such as 

resumed mining on the Richinbar site, 

building new structures and range 

improvements, and 

installing communication towers and 

technological supports. 

Such activities could increase ground 

disturbance and noise and add new structures 

visible from the WSR corridor. These 

developments could also diminish scenic values, 

including night skies, and disturb riparian habitat 

and wildlife populations on public land.

Allowing continued development of small utility 

distribution systems could degrade existing 

wilderness if development was proposed for inholdings or on property near wilderness 

boundaries. Developments could affect 

wilderness character by adding noticeable 

human-made elements to the landscape.

Increased presence of people and activity could 

lead to loss of solitude in some wilderness areas 

and lessen the recreation experience.

Retaining an existing multi-use utility corridor 

extending from Yarnell along the southwest 

portion of Hassayampa River Canyon 

Wilderness could degrade the wilderness.

Projects added to the corridor could alter the 

natural and visual character of the area and 

diminish the wilderness experience for some 

visitors. Retaining other utility corridors should 

not affect other wilderness areas because the 

wilderness values were found to exist with the 

corridors in place and the potential for utility 

development was known.
Chapter 4

461

4.6.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to the WSR in Agua Fria National 

Monument should be prevented by (1) general 

guidance to maintain or improve resource 

conditions and (2) management to protect 

national monument resources. Obtaining legal 

entitlement of water resources could benefit 

the WSR segments of the Agua Fria River by 

securing water availability to maintain the 

remarkable values that led to designation. Some 

of these values are described in the national 

monument's purpose and 

significance statements.

Requirements to maintain compliance with local 

and regional dust standards could improve air 

quality in some ACECs and wilderness areas, 

and enhance vistas from wilderness and back 

country byways.

No impacts are expected from soil and air

resource management as described for the 

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan 

(MFP) (BLM 1983). However, ensuring the 

legal availability of water and maintaining 

adequate flows of springs in the Harquahala 

Mountains would protect the wilderness area by 

protecting special spring and riparian features, 

sustaining diverse wildlife habitat, and 

maintaining habitat quality near springs.

Inventorying and filing for water rights in the 

Harquahala Mountains, Big Horn Mountains, 

Hummingbird Springs, Hassayampa River 

Canyon, and Hells Canyon Wilderness Areas 

would protect the areas by preserving the 

wilderness values of water sources.

4.6.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Managing existing biological resources 

could affect the Agua Fria WSR Corridor.

Opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat, 

species diversity, and riparian health exist in the 

national monument. Prescribed burning, tree 

planting along the river and its tributaries, and 

other actions to restore natural ecological 

conditions would enhance the values that make 

the river segments eligible for Wild or 

Scenic designation.

Transplanting populations of Gila chub would 

benefit the Larry Canyon and Perry Mesa 

ACECs by ensuring persistence of the species.

Alternative B

Impacts under Alternative B would be the same 

as described for Alternative A for Agua Fria 

National Monument except that Larry Canyon 

ACEC would be eliminated.

The Harquahala Mountains Wildlife Habitat 

Area (WHA) could affect Harquahala Mountains 

Wilderness by strengthening wildlife 

populations and maintaining more natural 

conditions next to the wilderness. New wildlife 

waters installed in wilderness areas 

could decrease naturalness by introducing more 

human developments in the wilderness. The 

wildlife waters would not be noticeable because 

they would be installed for consistency with 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I 

objectives.

Alternative C

Impacts under Alternative C would be the same 

as described for Alternative B for Agua Fria 

National Monument. Managing pronghorn 

movement corridors could enhance the proposed 

suitable segments of the WSR in the Agua Fria 

River. Other controls on vehicle routes and 

recreation site development where wildlife 
Chapter 4

462

corridors cross the river would help retain the 

outstandingly remarkable values that led to the 

areas‘ suitability.

The Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn wildlife 

corridor and the Belmont/Big Horn WHA would 

benefit Hummingbird Springs, Big Horn 

Mountains, and Harquahala Mountains 

Wilderness Areas by retaining natural open 

space and wildlife populations next to the 

wilderness and allowing wildlife movement 

between the wilderness areas. Protected wildlife 

movement areas would help sustain natural 

populations in the wilderness areas by providing 

extended habitat and maintaining the genetic 

diversity to assure long-term viability as 

individual animals move from one area to 

another. Healthy wildlife populations in and 

around the wilderness areas would increase 

opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting 

and retain the natural character of open 

space. The impact of new wildlife waters 

installed in wilderness would be the same as for 

Alternative B.

Alternative D

Impacts from wildlife management in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to those 

described for Alternative C.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

biological resources are mainly managed 

through ACEC designations in locations that 

could affect wilderness areas. These impacts are 

discussed in Section 4.6.1.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

The Harquahala Mountains ACEC and the 

movement corridors would protect wildlife 

habitat and help maintain natural conditions, 

open space, and wildlife habitat/populations on 

public lands. Protecting and enhancing wildlife 

populations contributes to the naturalness of 

the area and to supplemental values that enhance 

visitor experiences, such as increased 

opportunities for wildlife viewing or hunting.

Impacts of new wildlife waters installed in 

wilderness would be the same as for Alternative 

B.

4.6.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no impacts expected.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B the historic Teskey 

homestead near the Agua Fria River would be 

allocated to public use and developed for public 

education and visitation. Visitors might disturb 

wildlife or leave trash in the area. Conversely, 

the presence of site visitors could help to deter 

illegal trash dumping. Developing an 

interpretive site is consistent with the 

recommended scenic status of this river segment 

since the Teskey site is not visible from the 

river. According to BLM's Manual 8351, 

recreational facilities are compatible with areas 

that are suitable for WSR status if such facilities 

are unobtrusive and do not adversely affect the 

natural character of a WSR area.

The Badger Springs petroglyph site, next to the 

proposed wild segment of the Agua Fria River, 

would also be interpreted for public visitation.

The high level of visitation in this area would 

enhance the effectiveness of educational 

exhibits. Increased awareness of the site could 

make it more vulnerable to vandalism, which is 

why BLM has completed a detailed 

documentation of the site. On-site facilities 

would be limited to a small number of 

unobtrusive interpretive signs. More substantial 

recreational facilities would be located away 

from the river. The increase in visitors to the 

site and impacts are expected to be insignificant 

because Badger Springs Wash is already a 

popular area that serves as the most accessible 

and easy route for hiking in the river canyon.

Conducting Class III surveys along 12 miles of 

the Agua Fria River would provide useful 
Chapter 4

463

information necessary to identify and protect 

cultural resources that comprise one of the 

outstanding values of WSR suitability.

In conducting surveys and scientific research in 

cultural priority areas in the Harquahala 

Mountains and Hassayampa River Canyon 

Wilderness Areas, these crews could 

temporarily diminish wilderness values, such as 

solitude. Most of these activities are expected to 

take place outside of wilderness areas to assess 

zones where cultural resources are more 

accessible and at greater risk of damage.

Sites developed for public use could affect the 

Harquahala Mountains and Hassayampa River 

Canyon Wilderness Areas through increased 

visitation and activity, leading to a diminished 

sense of solitude for some visitors.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B; except that the area surrounding 

the Badger Springs petroglyph site would be 

developed with fewer facilities, in accordance 

with the moderate public use level.

Alternative D

Potential impacts would be limited to 

Harquahala Mountains Wilderness and would be 

the same as described for Alternative B. The 

Wickenburg/Vulture Special Cultural 

Resource Management Area (SCRMA) would 

not be developed for public use 

under Alternative D.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Potential impacts would be limited 

to Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Area and 

would be the same as described for Alternative 

B.

4.6.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.6.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Current recreation uses would continue. Greater 

levels of visitation and motorized recreation use 

could lessen the values of suitable WSR 

segments of the Agua Fria River through 

increased noise, litter, and vehicular travel at 

several crossings. Existing vehicle routes in the 

national monument would remain open except 

for those in the WSR corridor. Increasing levels 

of recreation use and motorized activity on the 

boundaries of the five designated wilderness 

areas could lessen, to varying degrees, the 

quality of wilderness-based recreation and 

solitude opportunities in the interior and along 

wilderness boundaries. Existing ACECs would 

be maintained, and no impacts from 

recreation activities are expected.

Alternative B

The Back Country RMZ in Agua Fria National 

Monument would help preserve the values of the 

wild segment and the southern scenic segment of 

the Agua Fria River. A recreation setting of 

mainly semi-primitive non-motorized, in 

conjunction with VRM Class II objectives, 

would maintain the natural character and visual 

quality making the areas eligible for 

designation. Only dispersed camping is 

permitted in the Back Country RMZ, and this 

activity would not degrade the WSR segments.

The Front Country RMZ in the monument could 

affect the northern scenic segment of the Agua 

Fria River. Roaded natural and semi-primitive 

motorized recreation settings could lead to more 
Chapter 4

464

vehicular travel in areas near the scenic corridor 

and diminish the recreation experience for some 

users in the corridor. Developing campgrounds 

would lead to concentrations of visitors. If the 

river is easily accessible from the sites, the 

increase in recreation use could change the 

character of the corridor in certain areas by 

adding to noise levels and litter. Dispersed 

camping would continue but is not expected to 

significantly affect the area. Restricting target 

shooting near high-use areas would affect the 

WSR segments by enhancing the recreation 

experience for other users. Visitors could still 

target shoot in the remaining areas within the 

corridor, which might degrade WSR values by 

damaging cultural resources such as 

petroglyphs.

Hieroglyphic Mountains Special Recreation 

Management Area (SRMA) could concentrate 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, increase traffic, 

and increase noise at the southwest edge of the 

wilderness. This would diminish the sense of 

solitude and natural quiet for visitors in the 

wilderness. Greater fugitive dust could 

potentially enter Hells Canyon Wilderness, 

obscuring vistas.

No Special Recreation Permit (SRP)-related 

impacts are expected on wilderness areas, 

ACECs, or back country byways.

Alternative C

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B.

Impacts on Hells Canyon Wilderness from the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B.

No SRP-related impacts to wilderness areas, 

ACECs, or back country byways are expected.

Alternative D

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B.

Managing the Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA 

to phase out motorized use over a 10 to 20 year 

period could enhance management within the 

Hells Canyon wilderness. Removing the sights 

and sounds of OHV activities over time could 

reduce the degradation of wilderness values of 

solitude and naturalness and improve the 

primitive recreation experiences of visitors to 

wilderness users. Impacts to the Hells Canyon 

wilderness from motorized activities would be 

similar to those described under Alternative B

until motorized use is phased out.

Managing the allocation to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be compatible with 

managing the proposed Belmont-Big Horn 

Mountain ACEC. Maintaining natural 

conditions and providing opportunities for 

primitive recreation would not influence the 

resources within the proposed ACEC. The 

ACEC would contain 25,760 acres of 

the allocation to maintain wilderness 

characteristics.

No SRP-related impacts to wilderness areas, 

ACECs, or back country byways are expected.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B, 

except the setting would be quieter, many 

visitors would feel safer, and visual quality 

would be improved through the reduction of 

items used as targets and spent shells.

The Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA would also 

be similar to Alternative B.

No SRP-related impacts on wilderness areas, 

ACECs, or back country byways are expected.

4.6.8 From Visual Resource 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument, no impacts 

are expected to WSR suitable segments.
Chapter 4

465

Within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, proposed projects near wilderness areas 

could lessen the quality of the recreation setting 

and viewshed by allowing human intrusions into 

visual landscapes. Wilderness would remain 

VRM Class I areas and experience no visual 

change in their boundaries.

Alternative B

In the monument, managing the Front 

Country RMZ to VRM Class III objectives 

could degrade the WSR segments by allowing 

projects to more visually intrude into the 

landscape next to the river segments and by 

diminishing the scenic values that led to the 

determination of eligibility.

Alternative B is not expected to affect the visual 

resources of wilderness areas, existing or 

proposed back country byways, or the Tule 

Creek ACEC.

Alternative C

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those under Alternative B except 

that they would mainly be limited to the 

northern WSR segment because the Back 

Country RMZ would be expanded and managed 

to VRM Class II objectives. Managing the back 

country byway to VRM Class II would prevent 

substantial visual intrusions in the byway‘s 

viewshed.

Alternative D

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those under Alternative C.

Managing Harquahala Mountain ONA ACEC to 

VRM Class I objectives would benefit 

Harquahala Mountains Wilderness by raising the 

VRM class of 298,310 acres surrounding the 

area to the same class as the wilderness area, 

thus maintaining a large natural appearing 

landscape from within the wilderness area.

Managing the ACECs to Class I objectives 

would benefit the Sheep Mountain Research 

Natural Area (RNA) and Black Butte ONA by 

minimizing visual intrusions into the natural 

setting of both areas. No future change or 

impairment to the viewshed in these areas would 

be expected.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those under Alternative C on the 

proposed WSR segments.

Impacts to wilderness areas, which would 

remain VRM Class I in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, would be the same 

as for Alternative A. No visual impacts to 

wilderness areas, existing back country byway, 

or to Tule Creek ACEC are expected.

Managing Harquahala Mountain and Black 

Butte ACECs to VRM Class II objectives would 

benefit the adjacent Harquahala Mountains, Big 

Horn Mountains, and Hummingbird Springs 

Wilderness Areas by reducing the possibility of 

visual intrusions into the landscape.

4.6.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Applying the Arizona Standards for Rangeland 

Health (see Section 2.7.1.1) and Guidelines for 

Grazing Administration (see Section 2.7.1.9) 

would reduce impacts and improve 

characteristics for which Special 

Designations, like wilderness, were designated.

Land health standards would improve upland 

soils and vegetation to minimize erosion and 

other ground disturbance produced by 

inadequate vegetation cover. Additionally, the 

standards would improve riparian areas and 

stream functions, which would enhance the 

habitat and help sustain the landscape‘s natural 

character.

Reaches of the Agua Fria River were determined 

to have WSR values despite grazing in the 

corridor. Continued grazing should not degrade 

values, and applying Land Health 
Chapter 4

466

Standards should maintain or improve habitat

characteristics.

This Alternative is not expected to affect 

wilderness areas, ACECs, or back country 

byways.

Alternative B

Impacts of applying the Land Health 

Standards and Rangeland 

Management guidelines would be the same as 

for Alternative A.

In the uplands of Special Area Designations, 

Alternative B would have impacts as 

described in the impacts of applying Land 

Health Standards above. Restricting grazing of 

riparian areas to winter would have impacts on 

the Agua Fria River WSR corridor and the 

riparian corridor in the Hassayampa River 

Canyon Wilderness. Wildlife habitat would 

likely be improved, and wildlife and livestock 

would compete less for resources during the 

winter. Improving vegetation and forage 

conditions would also benefit wilderness areas 

by improving natural and natural-appearing 

ecological conditions, enhancing wilderness 

values and improving visitor's experience.

Alternative C

Impacts of applying the Land Health 

Standards and Rangeland 

Management guidelines would be the same as 

for Alternative A.

Impacts to the riparian corridors would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B, 

except that the year-round restriction of grazing 

should eliminate all competition between 

wildlife and livestock for resources in the WSR 

and riparian corridors. Habitat should be further 

improved, enhancing the wildlife and scenic 

values of the suitable WSR segments of the 

Agua Fria River and in Hassayampa River 

Canyon Wilderness.

Alternative D

Because Alternative D would eliminate grazing, 

impacts would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be the same as described for 

Alternative B.

4.6.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Minerals management under Alternative A is not 

expected to affect Agua Fria National 

Monument as the monument is closed to all 

forms of mineral entry, leasing, and sales except 

for casual use and valid existing rights on 

existing claims.

Mining near wilderness areas, in ACECs, and 

along the back country byway could reduce 

solitude in some areas; increase noise, dust, and 

traffic; and detract from the visual setting. The 

potential for leasable and locatable minerals is 

very low, and areas with locatable potential are 

not near wilderness areas. Areas of potential 

saleable minerals (e.g. sand and gravel) are near 

rivers and washes and are not near wilderness 

areas. Decorative rock and other saleable 

mineral operations exist in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area; however, did not 

affect the findings of wilderness values. Future 

requests for similar development near wilderness 

areas could have impacts as described, but 

potential areas for such operations are unknown.

Alternative B

As in Alternative A, no impacts are expected on 

Agua Fria National Monument. 

Closing Tule Creek ACEC to all mineral 

development would benefit the biological and 

cultural resources that are relevant and important 

to ACEC designation by eliminating the 
Chapter 4

467

potential for disturbing and damaging these 

resources.

Impacts of mineral development on wilderness 

areas, back country byways, and ACECs would 

be the same as described for Alternative A.

Alternative C

No impacts are expected on Agua Fria National 

Monument.

Closing Tule Creek ACEC and Sheep Mountain 

RNA to all mineral development would have 

impacts similar to those described for 

Alternative B.

Alternative D

No impacts are expected on Agua Fria National 

Monument.

Impacts from managing Tule Creek ACEC 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B.

Closing Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC to all 

forms of mineral entry would benefit Hells 

Canyon Wilderness by reducing the potential 

area susceptible to ground disturbance and 

maintaining primitive open space. The potential 

for disturbance from leasable and locatable 

mineral development would be eliminated 

and the natural open space and resources of the 

ONA ACEC would be maintained.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be the similar to those under 

Alternative B.

4.6.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the No-Action Alternative, fire would be 

managed throughout the planning area according 

to the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan 

Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality 

Management, September 2003.

Agua Fria National Monument grasslands are a 

fire-adapted ecosystem with a 0–35-year fire 

return frequency. As fire continues to be used as 

a natural process to restore ecosystem health, the 

national monument‘s grasslands would continue 

to be subject to prescribed burning. The burning 

would affect the WSR corridor through 

vegetation mortality and blackening of the 

landscape in grasslands that extend into the 

corridor. Prescribed burning would reduce the 

visual values in the corridor over the short term, 

until vegetation regenerates. Air quality and 

visibility would also decline during the burn 

period, and the decline could temporarily 

diminish the visual setting and character of the 

corridor.

As stated in the Statewide LUP Amendment for 

Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management, fire 

management would try to avoid altering the 

natural character of Special Area Designations. 

Should a prescribed fire escape containment, 

however, more damage to riparian vegetation 

could occur in the WSR corridor. The damage 

could further degrade the visual character and 

habitat in the corridor and diminish the 

remarkable values that led to WSR eligibility.

Use of prescribed fire could affect the WSR 

corridor by initially increasing runoff and 

erosion along the Agua Fria River in the national 

monument. This outcome could temporarily 

decrease water clarity, increase sedimentation, 

and diminish the corridor‘s visual character.

Over the long term, use of fire as a natural 

process in the national monument should lead to 

increased ecosystem health and enhanced habitat 

that would maintain the remarkable visual and 

habitat values of the corridor that led to WSR 

eligibility.

Fire suppression could degrade wilderness areas 

by using mechanized equipment and aircraft.

Impacts would include the temporary increase in 

noise that would diminish opportunities for 
Chapter 4

468

solitude in other areas of the affected wilderness 

area. Use of mechanized equipment would 

leave visible ground disturbance that could 

remain for long periods. Retardant use could 

leave visible residue on the landscape for several 

years. The same impacts could alter the setting 

and character of the landscape near the 

Harquahala Mountain Summit Road Scenic 

Byway and temporarily diminish the scenic 

quality of the byway travel experience.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts from fire management would be similar 

to Alternative A, including temporary impacts at 

the northwest and eastern end of Hassayampa 

River Canyon Wilderness. Visitors would be 

restricted from parts of the wilderness during 

prescribed burns. The fire damage would 

detract from the visual setting for users until the 

vegetation recovers.

4.6.12 From Wild Horse and 

Burro Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Current conditions would be maintained.

Sufficient wilderness values were found to 

designate the Hummingbird Springs, Harquahala 

Mountains, Big Horn Mountains, and Hells 

Canyon Wilderness Areas, with burros present 

in the existing Herd Areas (HAs) that encompass 

parts of these areas. While management in the 

Lower Gila North Management Framework 

Plan (BLM 1983) called for the herd level in the 

Harquahala HA to be zero, the action was not 

completed. The current impacts of vegetation 

damage, soil and vegetation trampling in 

gathering areas, and trailing (or creating multiple 

new paths across the landscape) would continue 

to diminish the natural setting in localized parts 

of the wilderness areas, especially near water 

sources and in canyons. Natural landscape 

settings would continue to exist in most portions 

of the wilderness areas.

Alternative B

The impacts of retaining the current burro herd 

level would be the same as under Alternative A

for all wilderness areas.

Alternatives C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Removing burros from the Harquahala HA 

would eliminate impacts to the Harquahala 

Mountains, Hummingbird Springs, and Big 

Horn Mountains Wilderness Areas. Trailing and 

vegetation impacts now occurring in Hells 

Canyon Wilderness would continue.

4.6.13 From Management of 

Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts are expected from current 

management of travel management on existing 

ACECs, the five wilderness areas, or the 

Harquahala Mountain Summit Road Back 

Country Byway. 

Under current WSR interim management, 

vehicle routes and developments are currently 

restricted to protect outstandingly remarkable 

values, including riparian habitat and 

wildlife. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated 

on the proposed suitable WSR segments within 

the Agua Fria National Monument

Alternatives B and C

The effects from travel management route 

designations associated with establishing 

the Hieroglyphic Mountains Special Recreation 

Management Area (SRMA) could concentrate 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, increase traffic, 

and increase noise at the southwest edge of the 

Hells Canyon wilderness. These effects 

could diminish the sense of solitude and natural 

quiet for wilderness visitors. Greater levels of 

fugitive dust could potentially enter Hells 

Canyon Wilderness, obscuring vistas.
Chapter 4

469

Impacts on suitable WSR segments would be the 

same as for Alternative A.

Alternative D

Managing the Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA 

to facilitate phasing out and restricting 

motorized recreation and motorized trails over a 

10 to 20 year period could enhance the nonmotorized recreation settings and opportunities 

within the Hells Canyon wilderness. The sights 

and sounds of motorized activities and fugitive 

dust entering the wilderness from vehicle travel 

would be lessened or eliminated when SRMA 

motorized routes are closed or use is 

restricted. In the interim time period (less than 

20 years), impacts to the Hells Canyon 

wilderness from motorized activities would be 

similar to those described under Alternative B.

Impacts on suitable WSR segments would be the 

same as for Alternative A.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts on Special Designations from 

management of travel management would be 

similar to those described for Alternatives B and 

C.

4.6.14 From Management of 

Wilderness Characteristics

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

The management of certain lands to maintain 

wilderness characteristics would have no direct 

effects on existing Special Area 

Designations. The social, physical, and 

managerial conditions and settings desired 

on lands managed for wilderness 

characteristics are compatible with public lands

currently managed as the Agua Fria National 

Monument, Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, Back Country Byways, and Wilderness 

Areas. Indirect benefits from management of 

wilderness characteristics could indirectly 

influence lands with Special Area Designations

as the allocation maintains undeveloped 

settings, offers dispersed non-motorized 

recreation experiences, enhances natural quiet 

and dark sky conditions, potentially 

reduces fugitive dust emissions, safeguards 

intact scenery and landscape vistas, and 

secures more intact wildlife habitats.

4.7 Impacts on Lands 

and Realty 

Management

This analysis addresses both the entire current 

inventory of BLM's surface lands in the 

planning areas and lands in the planning areas 

considered for acquisition because of their 

resources. These lands include 967,000 surface 

acres, with 896,100 acres of BLM-managed land

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area and

70,900 acres of BLM's land in Agua Fria 

National Monument. Interspersed in the Federal 

lands are parcels that might be available for 

acquisition from a willing seller. For the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala area, demands on Federal 

land management in and around the Phoenix 

metropolitan area resulting from rapid 

urbanization would be fulfilled by the following: 

land tenure management prescriptions, 

(including disposal and acquisition), 

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) 

leases or patents, 

right-of-way authorizations, and 

land use permit management 

prescriptions. 

Each of the large tracts of BLM-managed land is 

next to large tracts of State land. Because the 

future legislative framework governing State 

land transactions is uncertain (including the 

potential for the exchange of land between the 

Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) and the 

Federal Government, State land is assumed for 

this analysis to be ineligible for development.

The impact analysis employed land use 

modeling completed for BLM for the planning 
Chapter 4

470

area to show the distribution of residential 

growth between the years 2000 and 2025 

(Appendix M). The land use model is consistent 

with the undeveloped land base shown in the 

general and comprehensive plans of each city or 

town and both counties.

The model was run four times, once each for the 

four Alternatives for BLM-managed land

available for disposal. The model assumes that 

all BLM's land eligible for disposal would 

change from Federal to private ownership during 

the planning period 2005 to 2025, and then 

would undergo residential development. Other 

than BLM-managed land, the model assumes 

that the amount of suitable vacant land available 

for residential growth for Maricopa and Yavapai 

Counties would be the same under all of the 

Alternatives.

The model uses one set of assumptions about 

such factors as follows:

persons per household, 

lot sizes, and 

the tendency for new housing to be 

attracted to areas next to areas that 

already have housing.

The model assumes that the availability of 

BLM-managed land for development would not 

induce growth countywide or increase the total

population projected for the two counties in 

2025. Both counties are already undergoing 

rapid growth, yet both counties already have a 

vacant residential land capacity that would meet 

the need for growth beyond 2025. Therefore, 

the availability of BLM-managed land for 

development would affect the phasing of land

development on the vacant residential land, 

rather than the development projected for 2025.

For Agua Fria National Monument the land 

tenure management prescriptions, (acquisition 

only) right-of-way authorizations, and land use

permit management prescriptions would fulfill 

the protective purposes of the national 

monument. 

The broad categories of land uses requiring 

right-of-way grants are the following:

electrical generation, 

transmission, and distribution systems, 

oil and gas related systems, 

telecommunication transmission and 

reception systems, 

transportation systems, and

water-related systems. 

The common land uses requiring permits are 

commercial photography, apiaries, geological 

and hydrological testing, and some military 

activities. The recipients of R&PP leases or 

patents are State and local governments and 

qualified non-profit organizations.

This analysis also addresses the impacts on 

designated right-of-way corridors on BLMmanaged land in the planning areas.

The resolution of mining claims has a bearing on 

the sequence of land disposal. When someone 

expresses an interest in acquiring land that BLM 

has proposed for disposal, under the Federal 

Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) the 

land is temporarily closed to the filing of mining 

claims. Typically, the prospective new owner 

purchases any claims and relinquishes them to 

BLM, at which point the mining claim is 

resolved. Generally, BLM prefers to dispose of 

the surface and subsurface mineral rights to the 

same new owner, and the above-described 

relinquishing of mining claims typically results 

in such disposal of surface and subsurface. 

Occasionally, BLM keeps the subsurface in 

Federal ownership when it is deemed to be in the 

public interest for BLM to continue to control 

the potential for future mining. 

Issuing rights-of-way where there are active 

mining claims is routine and covered by 

legislation and regulation. The right-of-way 

purchaser or permittee is informed of the rights 

of the mining claimant. Mining might 

intermittently or temporarily obstruct the rightof-way. 
Chapter 4

471

4.7.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Wilderness areas would remain closed to rightsof-way and land use authorizations. BLM would 

try to acquire non-Federal wilderness inholdings when there are willing sellers or the 

potential for a land exchange. Acquiring inholdings would block up Federal ownership in 

sensitive resource areas.

Alternative B

Special Designations generally constrain lands 

and realty activities in the following ways:

limiting the lands open to exchange or 

disposal in any zone, 

reducing the demand for the number and 

type of realty use authorizations, 

restricting the ability to build or relocate 

roads for legal access, and 

eliminating options of authorization or 

conveyance of land to resolve a trespass. 

Special Designations might require mitigating or 

relocating an activity. For example, mitigation 

for conflicts is permissible to achieve no net loss 

in amount or quality of desert tortoise habitat 

while accommodating requests for rights-ofway, easements, withdrawals, or other land 

tenure actions. At the most, the activity might 

be prohibited altogether.

None of the proposed Special Designations are 

located in areas slated for development between 

2005 and 2025 in Maricopa, Yavapai, or La Paz 

Counties. None of the Special Designations are 

in a location that would otherwise be a part of 

the most direct route for workers to commute to 

work. In addition, the Special Designations are 

generally a part of the open space designated in 

the general plans of the counties and 

municipalities. Therefore, the Special 

Designations would not preclude developing a 

typical urban transportation network in the 

planning area.

Tule Creek ACEC (640 acres) is proposed for

designation in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, and stipulations consistent with 

its protection would be written into any future 

land use authorizations in the ACEC. The 

locations could be affected, or the terms of use 

of access easements and rights-of-way could be 

restricted to protect Tule Creek.

The effects of wilderness areas would be the 

same as in Alternative A.

Alternative C

Lands adjoining Harquahala Mountains ACEC 

would be of higher priority for acquisition than 

other lands because of their biological and 

cultural values. Therefore, these lands might be 

acquired instead of other lands.

Black Mesa ACEC would be established to 

protect significant cultural resources. To the 

west of Interstate 17, the utility corridor width 

of two miles would allow for flexibility in 

planning and designing transmission facilities to 

avoid impacts to archaeological sites. The 

presence of the interstate highway provides 

some protection by limiting public access to 

these sites. In coordination with the Arizona 

Department of Transportation (ADOT), BLM 

would implement measures to mitigate the 

effects to archaeological sites of widening and 

maintaining the highway.

The effects of wilderness areas would be the 

same as Alternative A

The impacts from Tule Creek on lands actions 

would be the same as those under Alternative B.

Alternative D

Designating the Agua Fria Riparian Corridor 

ACEC in Agua Fria National Monument would 

constrain the location of rights-of-way in the 

Black Canyon corridor. In the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area acquiring private and 

State in-holdings and adjacent lands (provided 

the seller is willing) to protect biological 

resources in the Belmont-Big Horn Mountains 
Chapter 4

472

would give these lands a higher priority area for 

acquisition than in-holdings without similarly 

high biological values. As such, BLM might 

acquire these lands instead of the other lands.

As in Alternative B, lands adjoining Harquahala 

Mountains ONA would also be of higher priority 

for acquisition than other lands because of 

biological and cultural values. 

The impacts on lands and reality management of 

designating Tule Creek ACEC would also be the 

same as under Alternative B.

The effects of wilderness areas would be the 

same as in Alternative A.

No new rights-of-way would be permitted in the 

Baldy Mountain ONA, so private interests 

needing vehicular or utility access to private 

lands could have to use a more circuitous and 

potentially more expensive route.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts are similar to those described under 

Alternative B.

4.7.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument public land 

ownership would not change. These retained 

lands would be managed according to the 

guidelines set forth in the proclamation 

designating the monument (Appendix A).

BLM could issue no leases or patents in the 

monument to local governments or non-profit 

organizations under the R&PP Act.

Since no communication sites would be 

designated within the monument, industry would 

rely on existing sites, which might not meet 

suitable industry needs. Industry would 

also rely on current transportation corridors, 

which might not be adequate to meet future 

demand needs.

Land ownership in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area would remain unchanged from 

existing management practices.

Lands suitable for R&PP use would be issued on 

a case-by-case basis to local governments and 

non-profit organizations under the R&PP Act.

Alternative A would continue Lands and Realty 

management as it is now occurring. As a result, 

no impacts would be expected.

Alternative B

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to Alternative A, except that the 

existing corridor would be narrowed so that the 

eastern boundary of the utility corridor would 

follow the easternmost boundaries of any 

existing rights-of-way in the corridor. The 

corridor boundary in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area would compensate for the 

monument boundary narrowing by widening the 

corridor 1 mile to the west of Interstate 17.

Future utility uses would then be forced to locate 

in undisturbed areas, resulting in possible 

increased costs for industry.

The total acreage of public land ownership in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would 

depend on whether all lands recommended for 

acquisition are acquired. The lands consolidated 

in the five Management Units (MUs) would 

improve management efficiency and would 

likely reduce management costs.

Impacts of land leases and patents for R&PP 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts of major rights-of-way and 

communication sites would be similar to 

Alternative A, except no new communication 

sites could be designated, and these facilities 

could not proliferate. This situation would allow 

for the orderly development of these facilities in 

designated sites, eliminating user conflicts. As 

technology continues to advance, BLM might 
Chapter 4

473

have to review its decisions to determine if its 

plan is meeting industry needs. Multiple new 

utility corridors, including all State route 

highway systems (including the proposed 

Wickenburg Bypass), would be designated as 

corridors across public lands. Designating 

corridors would prevent the proliferation of 

major utility systems across public lands.

Land use authorizations would be precluded or 

restricted on lands in the MUs, decreasing the 

location flexibility for rights-of-way and 

increasing construction costs for utility rights-ofway.

Alternative C

The impacts of public land ownership and 

R&PPs in the national monument would be the 

same as Alternative A.

BLM would issue no leases or patents for land 

within the monument to local governments or 

non-profit organizations under the R&PP Act.

Rights-of-way and communication sites in the 

monument would be similar to Alternative B, 

except that the existing corridor would be 

eliminated from the monument. The corridor 

boundary in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be adjusted to make up for the loss 

of the corridor in the monument boundary by 

being widened 2 miles to the west of Interstate 

17. Future utility uses would then be forced to 

locate in undisturbed areas, possibly increasing 

costs for industry.

Public land ownership in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be similar to 

Alternative B, except that the lands would be 

consolidated into six MUs 

Impacts of land leases and patents for R&PP use 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Land use authorizations (including rights-ofway, communication site leases, and utility 

corridors) would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative D

The impacts of public land ownership and 

R&PPs in the national monument would be the 

same as Alternative A.

Impacts of new rights-of-way within the 

monument would be similar to Alternative B,

except that the corridor in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be extended, 

not widened so that it would be continuous north 

and south on BLM's lands. Any future need to 

locate utilities in the corridor would not be met, 

creating a need to locate elsewhere and 

increasing industry costs. This limitation could 

also restrict any future attempts to widen 

Interstate 17 as potential growth warrants.

Public land ownership in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be similar to 

Alternative B, except that the lands would be 

consolidated into seven MUs. 

Impacts of land leases and patents for R&PP use 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Land use authorizations (including rights-ofway, communication site leases, and utility 

corridors) would be similar to Alternative B, 

except that no new electric or gas corridors 

would be designated. As the potential demand 

for electricity and gas increases, the supply 

would not be sufficient. Costs might increase 

because of a lack of resources.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

The impacts of public land ownership and 

R&PPs in the national monument would be the 

same as Alternative A.

Impacts of new rights-of-way within the 

monument would be the same as Alternative B.

Public land ownership in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be the same as 

Alternative C.

Impacts of land leases and patents for R&PP use 

would be the same as Alternative A.
Chapter 4

474

Land use authorizations (including rights-ofway, communication site leases, and utility 

corridors) would be similar to that described for 

Alternative B; however, the Black Canyon MU 

corridor represents an improved location to long

term management of major rights-of-way. The 

corridor allows for further development of utility 

projects to meet the demand of the large and 

rapidly growing Phoenix Greater Metropolitan 

Area, while confining those utility projects to an 

area where environmental impacts can be 

minimized.

4.7.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

In all Alternatives, efforts to minimize impacts 

to soils, water, and air would result in increased 

project costs and may result in project redesign 

or a shifted location. All permitted activities 

within air quality nonattainment areas would be 

required to meet county standards and 

incorporate county stipulations into their project 

proposal. For qualifying projects, meeting air 

quality standards may increase project costs.

4.7.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Acquisition of lands to enhance BLM's 

management of habitat critical to threatened or 

endangered species as well as habitat for other 

sensitive species is given a high priority and 

would result in acquisition of those areas in 

preference to other areas. Biological resource 

management would otherwise not affect lands 

and realty management in either planning area.

4.7.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

The potential discovery of cultural and historical 

sites across public lands could cause BLM to 

restrict land use authorizations. Land use 

authorizations might have to be relocated/ 

rerouted, or a treatment plan might have to be 

developed to include mitigation measures, such 

as scientific data recovery. Such measures could 

prove to be expensive, resulting in projects that 

are uneconomical to complete.

4.7.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and

E (Proposed Alternative)

Since no known areas with paleontological 

resources occur within the planning areas, no 

impact is expected.

Should paleontological resources be discovered, 

BLM could restrict land use authorizations. 

Land use authorizations might have to be 

relocated/rerouted, or a treatment plan might 

have to be developed to include mitigation 

measures, such as scientific data recovery. Such 

measures could prove to be expensive, resulting 

in projects that are uneconomical to complete. 

4.7.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Recreation management would not affect lands 

and realty management under any of the 

Alternatives.
Chapter 4

475

4.7.8 From Visual Resource 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

VRM would only slightly affect lands and realty 

management under any of the Alternatives. In 

VRM Class I and II areas, rights-of-way would 

be buried, relocated as needed, or otherwise 

designated to be compatible with their 

surroundings to ensure scenic integrity. BLM 

would not approve land use authorizations that 

are inconsistent with VRM Class I and Class II, 

thus creating the need to select a more suitable 

location. Such a situation could prove to be 

costly to certain project proposals.

4.7.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Rangeland management would not have any 

expected impacts on lands and realty 

management under any of the Alternatives

4.7.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Minerals management would not have any 

expected impacts on lands and realty 

management under any of the Alternatives.

4.7.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Fire management would not have any expected 

impacts on lands and realty management under 

any of the Alternatives.

4.7.12 From Wild Horse and 

Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Wild horse and burro management would not 

have any expected impacts on lands and realty 

management under any of the Alternatives.

4.7.13 From Management of 

Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected in this area.

4.7.14 From Management of 

Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

Currently, there are no areas specifically 

managed for wilderness characteristics;

therefore, there are no expected impacts.

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In any proposed Alternative, the allocations to 

maintain wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to rights-of-way and inconsistent land use 

authorizations. Future utilities and private 

requestors for access would be required to find 

other alternative routes through these areas.

Land use authorizations in these areas would 

only be slightly affected.
Chapter 4

476

4.8 Impacts on Soil 

Resources

4.8.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Under current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument, soil resources in the Perry 

Mesa ACEC (9,580 acres) would likely be 

protected from increased erosion and soil loss; 

and from decreased soil moisture and 

productivity by limiting motor vehicle 

use. However, current management would not 

affect soil resources there because of the 

inaccessibility of the Larry Canyon ACEC to 

both livestock and motor vehicles. Similar 

to Larry Canyon ACEC, most of the suitable

WSR corridors (6,030 acres) are in narrow, 

inaccessible canyons where there are few 

conflicts with the nonimpairment provisions of 

current interim management. Some places in the 

northern reaches of the Agua Fria River are 

accessible by vehicles. Restrictions on vehicular 

use of interim management should maintain or 

improve soil productivity and reduce soil loss.

All of the Special Management Areas (SMAs) in 

the national monument are in areas of moderate 

potential soil erodibility with some small areas 

of severe and extremely severe potential soil 

erodibility.

Existing management of Congressionally 

Designated Wilderness (96,820 acres) would 

maintain current soil productivity by imposing 

management restrictions on activities.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument, interim 

management of the eligible WSR corridor under 

Alternative B, would be the same as described 

for Alternative A. Removing the ACEC 

designation in Larry Canyon and on Perry Mesa 

would not affect the soil because the same 

activities limited by the ACEC designation 

would be limited under the national monument 

designation. Removal of these ACECs would 

not affect soils.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

closing the fenced area of the Tule Creek 

ACEC to motorized vehicles and grazing could 

benefit soil resources by reducing soil 

disturbance and compaction. Therefore, this 

area is rated to have slight potential soil 

erodibility. Reduced soil disturbance would 

result in slightly reduced erosion and increased 

soil infiltration and productivity. 

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument, the four 

designated ACECs are all in areas with moderate 

to very severe potential soil erodibility.

Management actions for these ACECs would 

only negligibly affect soil resources beyond 

protections afforded by the National Monument 

Proclamation (Appendix A). Interim 

management of the eligible WSR corridor would 

be the same as described for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, the 

protective measures of designating six ACECs, 

totaling 55,710 acres would reduce soil erosion 

and improve soil moisture and productivity.

These areas are rated to have slight potential soil 

erodibility.

Alternative D

Impacts from the ACECs and suitable WSR 

corridors in Agua Fria National Monument 

would be the same as those described for 

Alternative C. In the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area eight ACECs, totaling 192,800 

acres are proposed; impacts to soil resources 

would be similar to those under Alternative C.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts from the Special Designations in Agua 

Fria National Monument would be the same as 

those described for Alternative C. In the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area four 

ACECs, totaling 89,970 acres are proposed; 
Chapter 4

477

impacts to soil resources would be similar to 

those under Alternative C.

4.8.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Activities subject to valid existing rights in the 

national monument might continue, and 

applications, proposals, and future use requests 

that were pending when the national monument 

was created are subject to the terms of the 

Monument Proclamation (Appendix A). These 

activities could degrade soil resources if 

construction-related erosion, soil disturbance, or 

compaction occurs. These disturbances are 

temporary; therefore, long-term changes to soil 

resources would not be probable.

Impacts to soil resources from utility and 

transportation corridors, and communication 

sites are not expected under the current 

management of Agua Fria National Monument.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

disposal and consequential development of lands 

could result in long-term reductions in soil 

productivity. Acquiring lands would not be 

expected to affect soil resources.

Building small utility distribution systems could 

affect soil resources if construction-related 

erosion, soil disturbance, or compaction 

occurs. These disturbances are 

temporary; therefore, long-term changes to soil 

resources might not be probable.

Building major utility lines in existing corridors 

could affect soil resources, mainly from 

development, service roads, and increased 

traffic. Additionally, road building could 

degrade soil resources by erosion, soil 

disturbance, or compaction.

Development of utilities within utility corridors 

could disturb soils by creating increased erosion 

and reduced productivity mainly from 

construction activities, service roads, 

and increased traffic. Mitigations could include 

(but not be limited to) avoidance of soils with 

high erosion potential, avoidance of steep 

slopes, construction of water control features, 

maintenance of as much vegetation as possible, 

and reclamation to suitable vegetation in a 

reasonable time.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument no impacts are 

expected from land tenure adjustments, utility 

and transportation corridors, or communication 

sites.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts to soil resources from utility and 

transportation corridors and communication sites 

would be similar to those discussed for 

Alternative A. Impacts to soil resources from 

utility and transportation corridors, and 

telecommunication sites would also be similar to 

those discussed for Alternative A.

4.8.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternative A (No Action)

Impacts to soil resources in Agua Fria National 

Monument are expected from the following:

maintaining and improving soil cover 

and productivity through erosion 

preventative measures and land 

treatments; 

implementing activity plans to maintain 

or increase ground cover that would 

improve infiltration, permeability, soil 

moisture storage, and soil stability; and 

implementing watershed improvement 

projects to increase ground cover and 

reduce erosion. 
Chapter 4

478

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area no impacts are 

expected on soil resources. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts to soil resources are expected to be

similar to those in Alternative A.

4.8.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument improvements 

to soil resources are expected from the 

following:

improving the Agua Fria River riparian 

corridor by mitigating past impacts and 

implementing management actions to 

protect soils, 

reducing soil erosion by planting 

cottonwood and willow along the Agua 

Fria River and its tributaries, and 

discontinuing the use of vegetation 

chaining and other vegetation 

manipulation methods that substantially 

disturb the surface. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts to soil resources are expected from the 

following:

developing projects, including springs, 

seeps, and other features affecting 

water; 

maintaining or enhancing spring/riparian 

habitats in the planning unit. Sites 

would be determined in the Habitat 

Management Plan (HMP) to meet the 

plan‘s goals; and 

reducing competition for cover, water, 

and space among big game, livestock, 

and burros by reducing livestock 

aggregations and removing all burros at 

waters in the Big Horn, Granite Wash, 

and Harquahala Mountains. 

Soil resources might slightly improve from all of 

these activities.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to those described in 

Alternative A.

4.8.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected to soil 

resources from cultural resource activities under 

any alternative.

4.8.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected to soil resources 

from managing paleontological resources under 

any alternative.

4.8.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument, areas of concentrated 

recreation could result in the loss or reduction of 

vegetation cover, compaction of soils, and 

streambank instability in riparian areas, thus 

decreasing soil moisture and productivity. 

OHV use designations vary between the east and 

west parts of the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area. In the area covered by the Phoenix RMP 

(BLM 1988a), vehicle travel is limited to 

existing roads and trails except for areas closed 
Chapter 4

479

or restricted to designated roads and trails. West 

of Highway 93, unlimited cross-country OHV 

use is allowed except in wilderness and other 

designated areas.

Increasing visitor use and vehicle travel in the 

area addressed by the Phoenix RMP would 

intensify soil erosion due to increasing numbers 

of OHV users and poorly engineered or nonengineered trails and routes. Despite users being 

confined to existing routes, erosion could 

increase on OHV trails ascending steep terrain 

and crossing unstable soils on hillsides. Overall, 

impacts from OHV use on soils are expected to 

be less than in other parts of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area as users are now 

restricted to using existing routes.

West of Highway 93, increased soil erosion is 

expected from increased visitation, multiplying 

numbers of routes, and greater use of OHVs on 

steep slopes. Bank washes would be broken 

down and made unstable in wash ―play‖ areas.

Soil damage and erosion could result from 

surface disruption, soil compaction, and damage 

to soil-holding plants. Furthermore, soils could 

be permanently damaged on steep slopes and 

across loosely graveled gentle slopes. Vehicle 

tracks on the lands here, especially desert 

pavement surfaces and hillsides, could last for 

60 years or perhaps centuries, from evidence of 

Native American artwork and tread marks from 

World War II desert training exercises.

Under the current management of the areas west 

of Highway 93 and north of Wickenburg, areas 

of concentrated recreation and OHV use could 

result in the loss of or reduced vegetation cover, 

soil compaction, and streambank instability in 

riparian and wash areas, thus reducing soil 

moisture and soil productivity.

Moreover, the lack of OHV-related management 

facilities and amenities would contribute to 

increasing damage to soils across the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. Vegetation and 

infiltration could decrease, wash bank and 

riparian area stability would decline throughout 

the area, and increased amounts of soil would be 

exposed to erosion and compaction.

All new routes would be built in ways intended 

to minimize soil disturbance, erosion, and 

compaction.

Cross-country non-motorized travel by foot, 

horse or mountain bike could lead to the creation 

of permanent trails, sometimes called ―social‖ 

trails that braid across the landscape. These usercreated and non-engineered trails are subject to 

hardening or erosion and may cross and impact 

fragile or unstable desert soils. Most social 

trailing is a result of intense public use near 

residential properties, trailheads, target shooting 

areas, dispersed campsites, campgrounds, and 

motorized staging areas. Cross-country use by 

OHVs has similar, but more severe impacts.

The impact from cross-country non-motorized 

travel in heavy use areas includes increased 

hardening of the soils from repeated trampling 

and reduced vegetation. Ribbons of trails may 

develop from users choosing different paths to 

walk. Cryptogammic (black crusty soil) soils in 

some desert locales and desert pavement areas in 

others are easily damaged. These soils show 

signs of footprints or hoof prints for many years. 

Loss of these surface protections can lead to 

increased soil erosion, especially on slopes and 

where these trails allow water to run for long 

stretches. Erosion can lead to more loss of plant 

life and reduced soil productivity. 

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument 57,900 acres 

of Front Country, 12,700 acres of Back Country, 

and 300 acres of Passage RMZs would be 

established, and recreation uses and 

opportunities in the zones would be managed for 

protecting natural resources. Impacts to soil 

resources, including increased surface 

disturbance and erosion, might occur in the 

Front Country and Passage RMZ as recreation 

use increases. However, impacts are not 

expected in the Back Country RMZ.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

route, closures in Tule Creek ACEC and 

allocations to maintain wilderness characteristics 

within the Castle Hot Springs and Harquahala 
Chapter 4

480

Management Units, would slightly reduce soil 

disturbance, erosion, and compaction by OHV 

use. Some of these routes are in soil mapping 

units with moderate potential soil erodibility, but 

most are in slight potential erodibility.

Soil erosion from improper events and OHV use 

would be lessened by implementing vehicle 

route designations throughout the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, along with wellplanned, sited, and signed special recreation 

management areas (SRMAs) addressing 

intensive recreation. Included would be both 

motorized and non-motorized uses in the Table 

Mesa, the Hieroglyphic Mountains, Stanton, 

Wickenburg, San Domingo Wash, and Vulture 

Mine SRMAs. Facilities and outreach/education 

would lessen improper OHV activities, further 

decreasing soil erosion, disruption, and 

compaction. Soil loss or damage by nonmotorized cross-country travel would be the 

same as described under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Impacts on the national monument would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative B and 

would occur on moderate to very severe soil 

erodibility areas on 42,000 acres of Front 

Country RMZ and 700 acres of Passage RMZ.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts from recreation management would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative B.

Reducing vehicle travel routes and use in 

Harquahala Mountains ONA, and the allocations 

to maintain wilderness characteristics within the 

Black Canyon MU, the Hassayampa MU, and 

the Harquahala MU, would reduce recreation 

and OHV-related erosion, compaction, and 

surface disruption of soils. Some of these routes 

are in soil mapping units with moderate potential 

erodibility areas, but most are in slight potential 

erodibility.

Implementing well-planned, sited, and managed 

SRMAs addressing intensive recreation, 

including both motorized and non-motorized 

use, and vehicle route designation throughout 

the planning area would lessen soil erosion from 

improper events and intensive OHV use. 

Associated facilities and outreach/education 

efforts would lessen improper OHV activities, 

further decreasing soil damage. Soil loss or 

damage by non-motorized cross-country travel 

would be the same as described under 

Alternative A.

Alternative D

Impacts on the national monument would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative C and 

would occur on moderate to very severe soil 

erodibility areas on 1,530 acres of the Front 

Country RMZ and 990 acres of the Passage 

RMZ.

Phasing out OHV use of the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains SRMA would eventually reduce the 

potential for soil disturbance, compaction, and 

erosion caused by motorized activities on 

16,510 acres. The overall management of the 

Castle Hot Springs Management Unit (MU) as a 

regional recreation management area would 

reduce soils impacts in the southern portion of 

the MU by phasing out motorized uses. As 

routes are reclaimed or are reduced in width for 

non-motorized use, cover vegetation would 

increase, increasing infiltration and reducing the 

amount of soil exposed to erosion and 

compaction.

The specified management of special recreation 

management areas (SRMAs) and restricting

vehicle use to designated routes would further 

reduce soil impacts in all other parts of the 

planning area. Increased BLM signing, OHV 

route development and connectivity, public 

education, and better managed motorized and 

non-motorized recreation under Alternative D

would lessen motorized impacts to soils over the 

long term. As routes are designated, reclaimed, 

or reduced in width for non-motorized use, 

cover vegetation would increase, increasing 

infiltration and reducing the amount of soil 

exposed to erosion and compaction. Soil loss or 

damage by nodes of intense non-motorized 

cross-country travel would be the same as 

described under Alternative A.
Chapter 4

481

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In this Alternative, 57,650 acres would be 

allocated to Back Country, 11,900 to Front 

Country, and 1,350 acres to Passage RMZs.

Impacts on the national monument would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative C and

D, except that 52 miles of route would be 

closed. The net reduction of routes would be 69 

miles. These route closures would likely reduce 

soil disturbance, erosion, and compaction by 

OHV use. All of the routes that would be closed 

or opened are located in moderate to very severe 

potential soil erodibility areas.

The overall management of the planning areas, 

along with the allocation of recreational vehicle 

use to designated routes only, would reduce 

impacts to soils in all parts of the planning area.

Increased BLM signing, route development, 

route connectivity, and better managed 

motorized and non-motorized recreation would 

lessen potential impacts to soils over the short 

and long term. As routes are designated, 

reclaimed, or reduced in width for nonmotorized use, cover vegetation would increase, 

increasing infiltration and lessening the amount 

of soil exposed to erosion and compaction. Soil 

loss or damage by localized areas with intense 

cross-country travel would be the same as 

described under Alternative A.

4.8.7.1 From Special 

Recreation Permit Program

Alternative A (No Action)

The predominant impacts to soils from the SRP 

program are soil compaction and accelerated 

erosion from concentrating activities in certain 

areas. Broken soil crusts and decreased 

vegetation cover exposes more soil to potential 

erosion and reduce infiltration. Most SRPs are 

issued for activities, such as jeep tours, horse 

events, and guided big game hunts, which occur 

on existing routes or disturbed areas and create 

minimal soil impacts. It is standard operating 

procedure to conduct environmental analysis 

before any SRP is authorized. Consequently, 

any permitted activities that could cause adverse 

impacts to soils are mitigated to minimize those 

impacts and rehabilitation is required when 

necessary.

Within the national monument, few SRPs are 

currently issued; for instances, those permitted 

have been for commercial tour groups and for 

hunting guides. These permits use areas where 

similar activities have been taking place for 

many years and have been determined to have 

little or no impact.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, the 

permitted recreation activities that cause the 

most disturbances to soils are the three 

motorized, competitive races that are held 

annually. Currently, the soil impacts from these 

races are closely monitored and the soils are 

rehabilitated as close to pre-race conditions as 

possible. However, under Alternative A, an 

unlimited number of competitive races could be 

authorized between October 15 and March 31, 

and in areas currently not used for such 

activities. Thus, without any set limitations on 

the number of races and the areas in which they 

can occur, this increased vehicle activity would 

inevitably lead to unacceptable cumulative soil 

impacts, perhaps most notably in previously 

undisturbed areas. 

Limited staffing would make it difficult to 

adequately manage and mitigate the effects from 

such use including increased soil compaction 

and vegetation disturbance in camping and 

staging areas. Moreover, depressions, holes, 

rills, and deep ruts would become more visible 

and larger gullies would form due to poor 

drainage during heavy rains. Routes used for the 

racing activities would be impacted from the 

racing vehicles churning up the soils on the 

routes, and breaking soil crusts due to vehicle 

passing, accidents or course cutting. More soil 

berms would be created at curves and corners 

which would lead to increased wind and water 

erosion. Areas with finer soils would be 

especially affected and difficult to rehabilitate. 

Even with close monitoring and rehabilitation 

efforts, due to the arid desert conditions, once 
Chapter 4

482

soil crusts are disturbed and barren soil is 

exposed they can take a long time to recover.

Alternative B

In the Agua Fria National Monument, BLM 

would issue up to 12 special recreation permits 

per year. This is a 400 percent increase over the 

current situation and could lead to additional soil 

disturbance in new areas as permittees seek new 

locations for activities to avoid crowding. 

However, due to the Monument Proclamation

requiring the protection of monument objects, 

permit requests would be scrutinized and 

permitted activities would be closely monitored. 

Therefore, soil impacts are expected to be slight.

For the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

impacts to soil resources from SRPs other than 

the competitive races would be similar to those 

discussed in Alternative A, except that 

the number of permits would be expected to 

increase. However, due to continuing 

implementation of mitigation measures, the 

impacts to soils from most of the permitted 

activities would be expected to increase only 

slightly. 

For competitive races, the number of races each 

year would be limited to 14 and additional limits 

would be established for the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains, Vulture Mountains, Stanton, San 

Domingo, and Table Mesa SRMAs. Races 

would be prohibited in the Wickenburg SRMA 

and in the ERMAs. However, the allowable 

number of races is still a substantial increase 

from current conditions and therefore soil 

impacts would be much higher. It is anticipated 

that these impacts could be difficult to mitigate, 

manage, and rehabilitate to acceptable levels if 

the upper end of the allowed number of races is 

reached.

Alternative C

For the Agua Fria National Monument, impacts 

to soils from SRPs would be less than those 

discussed for Alternative B as only six permits 

per year could be issued. While still a 200

percent increase over current conditions, this

would lead to a slight, if any, increase in soil 

disturbance.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts to soils from SRPs other than races 

would be the same as those described for 

Alternative B. 

For competitive races, the number would be 

limited to six per year and no races would be 

allowed in the Table Mesa SRMA in addition to 

the SRMA limits identified in Alternative B. 

Further, set limits for Hieroglyphic Mountains 

and Vulture Mountains SRMA would keep the 

number of races near current levels thereby 

keeping soil impacts at existing conditions. 

Other SRMAs that would allow races include 

Stanton and San Domingo. Only one new race 

would be allowed in the Stanton and San 

Domingo SRMAs making management of the 

activities more feasible in keeping soil impacts 

to a minimum.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, BLM would not issue 

SRPs for the national monument; therefore, 

eliminating any potential impacts to soils.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts to soils from SRPs, other than 

competitive races, would be the same as those 

described for Alternative B. 

No competitive races would be allowed. This 

would eliminate any continued impacts to soils 

from this activity, and soils would be allowed to 

recover from previous races.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts in the national monument are expected 

to be similar to those described in Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, no 

permit levels would be established for SRPs 

other than competitive races. Permit numbers 

would be expected to rise over current 

conditions for both planning areas and soil 
Chapter 4

483

impacts would be similar to those discussed in 

Alternative B.

Competitive races would be limited to eight per 

year which is slightly higher than current 

conditions. Impacts would be similar to those 

addressed in Alternative C, except that the 

number of races could increase to four per year 

in the Vulture Mountains SRMA. However, the 

soil types in this SRMA are more resilient so 

impacts would be expected to be slight.

4.8.8 From Visual Resource 

Management

Alternative A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected to soils from 

management for Visual Resources.

4.8.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In both planning areas, implementing the 

guidelines adopted in Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (Land Health Standards) would 

increase ground cover, which would provide for 

infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, 

and soil stability suitable for the ecological sites 

in the MUs. Implementation would also 

maintain or promote enough vegetation to 

maintain, improve, or restore riparian-wetland 

functions of energy dissipation, sediment 

capture, groundwater recharge, and streambank 

stability, thus promoting stream channel 

morphology (e.g. gradient, width/depth ratio, 

channel roughness, and sinuosity) and functions 

suitable for climate and landform.

Alternative B

Expected impacts to soil resources from 

rangeland/grazing management in uplands of the

Agua Fria National Monument would be similar 

to those described for Alternative A. However, 

limiting grazing in riparian areas to the winter 

would encourage more rapid recovery of 

riparian vegetation and reduce impacts to soils 

from grazing.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning grazing in 

riparian areas would also be limited to the 

winter. Winter-only grazing in riparian areas 

would encourage more rapid recovery of 

riparian vegetation and reduce impacts to soils 

from grazing.

Alternative C

In both planning areas impacts to soils from 

grazing in uplands would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative B. Some reduction in 

upland grazing could occur. Grazing in riparian 

areas would be eliminated, increasing soil cover 

and reducing streambank damage from grazing 

under Alternative B. For grazing allotments that 

lack adequate fencing, the entire pasture would 

be closed to grazing. Alternative C would 

substantially reduce upland grazing as well as 

the use of riparian areas. This adjustment could 

be substantial in pastures or allotments that 

cannot be fenced in riparian areas from the 

upland areas. In these cases, the whole pasture 

could be closed from grazing.

Alternative D

In both planning areas soils would benefit from 

closing livestock grazing allotments, canceling 

livestock authorizations for the duration of the 

plan, and installing fencing to control livestock 

use of unfenced public lands. 

Alternative D would result in the greatest 

improvement of the current impacts from 

livestock grazing on soil. Soil disturbance, soil 

compaction, and erosion would be lower than 

under any of the other Alternatives.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts for both areas would be similar to 

those described for Alternative B.
Chapter 4

484

For the Agua Fria National Monument impacts 

would be similar to those described in 

Alternative B.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning expected 

impacts to soil resources from rangeland/grazing 

management in uplands would be similar to 

those described for Alternative A. Grazing

management changes would be implemented as 

needed to produce riparian areas that are making 

progress toward proper functioning condition. 

Management actions could include, but are not 

limited to, winter-only grazing in riparian areas. 

This would encourage recovery of riparian 

vegetation and reduce impacts to soils from 

grazing.

4.8.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In the Agua Fria National Monument, minerals 

management is not expected to affect soil 

resources. Existing mining claims are limited to 

casual use and valid existing rights. Impacts to 

soils, such as erosion and vegetation 

disturbance, would be limited to small areas 

under casual use.

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, mining that involves 

building access roads, is likely to disturb soils.

Road building would increase soil erosion, 

disturbance, and compaction.

Should exploration or development of locatable, 

saleable, and/or leasable minerals be pursued, 

special stipulations would be included in the 

mining plan of operations after the results of 

site-specific EAs for each action are known.

Impacts cannot be projected before preparing 

such assessments, which would include 

methods, mitigation, and rehabilitation plans to 

meet the conditions required to protect soil.

Therefore, such measures could minimize 

effects on soils. 

Locatable Minerals

Mining itself might disturb soils and potentially 

result in accelerated erosion and loss of soil 

productivity. These effects to soils could be 

mitigated under 43 CFR 3715 and 43 CFR 3809, 

the regulations that implement the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Acts (FLPMA) 

mandate to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation from the surface disturbance of 

mining under the Mining Law of 1872.

Saleable Minerals

Extracting mineral materials would result in loss 

of soils and vegetation cover in mining areas and 

could lead to increased soil erosion.

Leasable Minerals

Mining that could occur in areas remaining open 

to leasable minerals development could degrade 

soils through compaction and increased 

erosion. From the RFD scenario described for 

the section of Chapter 4, Impacts on Minerals 

and Energy Resources, the likely scope of 

leasable mineral development is small.

Therefore, impacts to soil are also likely to be 

small.

Alternative B

Impacts of minerals management on soil would 

be similar to those discussed for Alternative A.

Alternative C

Impacts to soils in Agua Fria National 

Monument would be similar to those discussed 

for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts to soil resources from minerals 

management would be similar to those discussed 

for Alternative A, but the closure of many areas 

to mineral entry, mineral material disposal, and 

mineral leasing under Alternative C would 

reduce potential soil disturbance from mining.
Chapter 4

485

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to soil 

from minerals management would be similar to 

those discussed for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts to soil resources would be similar to 

those discussed for Alternative A, but the closure 

of many areas to mineral entry, mineral material 

disposal, and mineral leasing under Alternative 

D would even further reduce potential soil 

disturbance from mining.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In both planning areas soil impacts from mining 

are expected to be similar to those under 

Alternative A. 

4.8.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Where prescribed burning is conducted in Agua 

Fria National Monument, the use of heavy 

equipment and mechanical thinning of trees 

could affect soils, increasing the potential for 

soil erosion. Soil moisture and productivity 

could be reduced in the short term, but increased 

in the long term. Prescribed burning would offer 

the following benefits:

increasing vegetation diversity, 

moving vegetation communities in 

target areas toward a natural desert 

grassland community, and 

reducing the risk of catastrophic fires.

These benefits would result in more vegetation 

cover that would reduce soil erosion.

Full suppression in interior chaparral or desert 

grassland communities, which are Fire-adapted 

vegetation types, would limit the natural 

beneficial affects of fire, encouraging vegetation 

type conversions towards higher proportions of 

woody species. As a result, herbaceous cover on 

the soil surface would likely decline with related 

soil effects, including decreased infiltration and 

increased runoff and erosion. The use of heavy 

equipment during suppression could also 

increase soil disturbance and potentially increase 

erosion.

Under the current management of both planning 

areas, full suppression of wildfires is needed to 

maintain healthy Sonoran Desert communities, 

which are highly sensitive to fire with 

potentially devastating loss of native plants 

including species such as; saguaro cactus, palo 

verde and ironwood trees.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

For fire adapted ecosystems an appropriate 

management response would be implemented to 

achieve the Desired Future Condition for the 

area. This response would provide for a variety 

of strategies and tactics for the incident 

commander and fire resources on site. These 

strategies could have a wide spectrum of actions 

that could include a range of alternatives from 

full suppression to no action including fire-use.

When lightning fires occur, a fire-use strategy 

could be implemented resulting in larger acreage 

that is burned. This increased acreage would 

result in short term increases in soil loss and 

depending on rainfall and re-vegetation of the 

burn area a large increase in soil loss and 

sediment deposit could occur. The long term 

recovery of natural fire adapted vegetation 

communities that respond rapidly to post fire 

conditions should make this a very short period.

Management actions of full suppression would 

continue in Sonoran Desert vegetation 

communities and in Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) areas. In these areas, full wildfire 

suppression would have impacts similar to those 

described for Alternative A.
Chapter 4

486

4.8.12 From Wild Horse and 

Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

No wild horses or burros inhabit Agua Fria 

National Monument.

Under the current and alternative management 

of the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

maintaining herd numbers at current levels in the 

Lake Pleasant Herd Management Area (HMA) 

would minimize impacts to soil from wild 

burros. In the Harquahala HA, removal of 

nuisance burros and burros from sensitive 

habitats would improve soil stability and 

productivity in the Harquahala MU.

4.8.13 From Management of 

Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Increasing visitor use and vehicle travel in the 

area addressed by the Phoenix RMP would 

intensify soil erosion due to increasing numbers 

of OHV users and poorly engineered or nonengineered trails and routes. Despite users being 

confined to existing routes, erosion could 

increase on OHV trails ascending steep terrain 

and crossing unstable soils on hillsides. Overall, 

impacts from OHV use on soils are expected to 

be less than in other parts of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area as users are now 

restricted to using existing routes.

West of Highway 93, increased soil erosion is 

expected from increased visitation, multiplying 

numbers of routes, and greater use of OHVs on 

steep slopes. Bank washes would be broken 

down and made unstable in wash ―play‖ areas.

Soil damage and erosion could result from 

surface disruption, soil compaction, and damage 

to soil-holding plants. Soils could be 

permanently damaged on steep slopes and across 

loosely graveled gentle slopes. Vehicle tracks 

on the lands here, especially desert pavement 

surfaces and hillsides, could last for 60 years or 

more— as evidenced with Native American 

artwork and tread marks from World War II 

desert training exercises.

Under the current management of the areas west 

of Highway 93 and north of Wickenburg, areas 

of concentrated recreation and OHV use could 

result in the loss of or reduced vegetation cover, 

soil compaction, and streambank instability in 

riparian and wash areas, thus reducing soil 

moisture and soil productivity.

The lack of OHV-related management facilities 

and amenities would contribute to increasing 

damage to soils across the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area. Vegetation and infiltration could 

decrease, wash bank and riparian area stability 

would decline throughout the area and increased 

amounts of soil would be exposed to erosion and 

compaction. All new routes would be built in 

ways intended to minimize soil disturbance, 

erosion, and compaction.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument, impacts to 

soil resources, including increased surface 

disturbance and erosion, might occur in the 

Front Country and Passage Zones due to 

increased transportation and public visitation. In 

the monument, 37 miles of route would be 

closed and five miles of route would be built.

The net reduction of 33 route miles would likely 

reduce soil disturbance, erosion, and compaction 

by OHV use. All of the routes that would be 

closed or opened are located in moderate to very 

severe potential soil erodibility areas.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

route closures in Tule Creek ACEC and 

allocations to maintain wilderness characteristics 

within the Castle Hot Springs and Harquahala 

Management Units would slightly reduce soil 

disturbance, erosion, and compaction by OHV 

use. Some of these routes are in soil mapping 

units with moderate potential soil erodibility, but 

most are in slight potential erodibility areas.
Chapter 4

487

Alternative C

Impacts on the national monument would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative B. In 

the monument, 48 miles of route would be 

closed and six miles of new route would be 

built. Moreover, this net reduction of 43 miles 

of route would marginally protect more soil 

resources than Alternative B. 

Reducing vehicle travel routes and use in 

Harquahala Mountains ONA, and the allocations 

to maintain wilderness characteristics within the 

Black Canyon MU, the Hassayampa MU, and 

the Harquahala MU, would reduce recreation 

and OHV-related erosion, compaction, and 

surface disruption of soils. Some of these routes 

are in soil mapping units with moderate potential 

soil erodibility, but most are in slight potential 

erodibility areas.

Alternative D

Impacts on the national monument would be 

similar to those discussed in Alternative C. In 

the monument, 123 miles of route would be 

closed and no new routes would be built.

Consequently, this alternative would provide the 

most protection to soil resources due to route 

closures.

Soil erosion resulting from vehicular travel 

would be curtailed by eliminating or mitigating 

recreation vehicle use in the allocations to 

maintain wilderness characteristics within the

Black Canyon MU, the Hassayampa MU, and 

the Harquahala MU.

Restricting vehicle use to designated routes 

would further reduce soil impacts in all other 

parts of the planning area. As routes are 

designated, reclaimed, or reduced in width for 

non-motorized use, cover vegetation would 

increase, increasing infiltration and reducing the 

amount of soil exposed to erosion and 

compaction.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts on the national monument would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative C and 

D, except that 70 miles of route would be closed. 

This reduction in route mileage would reduce 

soil disturbance more than Alternatives B and C, 

but less than Alternative D. 

Soil erosion caused by vehicular travel would be 

curtailed by eliminating vehicle use in Tule 

Creek ACEC, and by reducing vehicle routes 

and cross-country travel in allocations to 

maintain wilderness characteristics and the 

Harquahala Mountains and Black Butte 

ACECs. Curtailing or reducing vehicle use in 

the above areas would benefit soil resources by 

eventually reducing the potential for soil 

disturbance, compaction, and erosion caused by 

motorized activities.

4.8.14 From Management of 

Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no impacts expected.

Alternative B 

For the management of wilderness 

characteristics 56,040 acres would be 

allocated. Soil disturbances, compaction, and 

erosion caused by human induced activities 

would be reduced in these areas.

Alternative C

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B

except that 107,843 acres would be allocated for 

the management of wilderness 

characteristics. Protection from soil disturbing 

activities would be greatest under this 

alternative. 
Chapter 4

488

Alternative D

Impacts would be same as Alternative B and 

Alternative C except that 140,235 acres would 

be allocated for the management of wilderness 

characteristics. This would include 37,571 acres 

within the Agua Fria National Monument.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B

except that 88,179 acres would be allocated for 

the management of wilderness characteristics.

As a result of this allocation, soil protection 

would be more than Alternatives A and B, but 

less than Alternatives C and D.

4.9 Impacts on Air 

Quality

Air Quality Impacts from OHVs

Most of the air emissions generated in both 

planning areas are generated by OHVs. OHV 

use is an important recreation activity for 

residents of Maricopa and Yavapai Counties.

On a countywide basis, OHVs generate fugitive 

dust and tailpipe emissions.

Table 4-1 shows estimated current countywide

emission rates for fugitive dust and nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) generated by countywide OHV 

use in the two counties. Table 4-1 also 

compares the OHV emission rates to the 

regional emissions generated inside the densely 

populated Phoenix nonattainment areas.

Although no estimates were made to apportion 

OHV use in both planning areas, only a fraction 

of the countywide use listed in Table 4-1is likely 

to affect the planning areas. Countywide 

emissions generated by OHVs are only a small 

fraction of the overall regional emissions, and 

most of the countywide OHV use occurs in 

remote rural areas. To the extent that OHVs 

cause elevated air pollutant concentrations 

immediately near the routes on which they 

operate, OHV use in remote rural areas is

unlikely to contribute to any meaningful 

regional air quality impacts that would affect the 

Table 4-1. Estimated Emissions from Countywide OHV Use

County

Annual OHV 

Trips

PM10 Emissions Nitrogen Oxides (NOx

) Emissions

Emission Factor 

(lbs/trip)

Annual Countywide 

Emissions (tons/yr)

Emission Factor 

(lbs/trip)

Annual Countywide 

Emissions (tons/yr)

Maricopa 2,087,000(1) 4

(3) 4,200 0.14(4) 146

Yavapai 1,195,000(2) 4

(3) 2,400 0.14(4) 84

Total Emissions From All 

Sources In Phoenix 

Nonattainment Areas

Total Phoenix PM10

Emissions (tons)

(Year 2001)

79,500(5) Total Phoenix NOx

Emissions (tons)

(Year 1999)

81,000(6)

Example calculation (NOx emissions within Maricopa County)

NOx emission factor = 0.14 lbs per 25-mile OHV trip

Maricopa County OHV usage = 2,087,000 trips/year

Annual OHV NOx emissions = (2,087,000 trips/year) x (0.14 lbs/trip) / (2000 lbs/ton) = 146 tons per year of NOx

Data Sources:

(1) Arizona State Parks, 2003

(2) Arizona State Parks, 2003

(3) Emission factor from Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area EIS (BLM 2003), assuming 25 miles per OHV trip

(4) NOx emission factor from Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area EIS (BLM 2003)

(5) Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 2000

(6) MAG 2002
Chapter 4

489

Phoenix nonattainment area.

Note that the current countywide OHV emission 

rates shown in Table 4-1 might increase in the 

future. The population of both Maricopa and 

Yavapai Counties are forecast to increase 

dramatically, and historical per-capita OHV use 

has increased faster than the rate of population 

growth. Thus, future emissions of fugitive dust 

would likely be higher than the current rates 

listed in Table 4-1. As a consequence, stricter 

measures may be warranted for the Phoenix 

area, and it is possible that OHV use might be 

among the new sources regulated to control dust 

emissions. Recently enacted Federal emission 

limits for OHVs will lead to reductions in 

tailpipe emissions from individual OHVs.

General Conformity Regulatory Requirements

During plan implementation, the General 

Conformity rule requires an applicability 

determination by the BLM for all emissions 

generated within nonattainment or maintenance 

areas, that are reasonably foreseeable, and that 

BLM can practicably control due to a continuing 

program responsibility. In order to quantify the 

contribution of off-road fugitive dust and other 

dust-generating activities, the BLM plans to 

prepare an emissions inventory as part of 

developing an Air Quality General Conformity 

analysis and determination. It will comply with 

applicable County and State air quality rules that

are currently going through rule changes. 

Therefore, the conformity analysis and 

determination may be completed after the 

Records of Decision are signed, but before 

additional off-road vehicle activities are 

authorized in non-attainment areas. No 

activities that may contribute to or inhibit the 

County from reaching attainment will be 

authorized, except for those actions that may be 

typically excluded by regulation (such as at 40 

CFR 93.158) until the conformity determination 

process is completed. 

Land disposal is a type of action that is exempt 

from the General Conformity rule (regardless of 

projected population increases), so long as the 

applicable Federal agency has no practicable 

control, nor continuing program responsibility, 

over the land subsequent to its transfer. 

Table 4-2 lists the Year 2025 population and air 

pollutant emissions that would be generated by 

land disposal parcels in the ozone and PM10

nonattainment areas. The table assumes that 

each parcel would be developed to a residential 

density based on that parcel's Regional Analysis 

Zone (RAZ) designation. For perspective, the 

table compares emissions from the land disposal 

parcels with the overall emissions from the 

entire nonattainment area. Note that in the 

majority of cases of land disposal, involving 

land sales or exchanges, the BLM would retain 

no practicable control, nor continuing program 

responsibility, over these lands subsequent to 

their transfer out of Federal ownership. 

Air Quality Issues of Utility Corridors

Each of the Alternatives specifies a different set 

of utility access corridors, related mainly to the 

width of each corridor. At this time none of the 

utilities have filed permits to build new pipelines 

or transmissions lines through any of the 

available corridors. If new utilities were 

permitted in the future and were built in the 

narrower corridor, then building and maintaining 

the new utility would generate temporary, 

localized fugitive dust impacts immediately 

nearby. In those cases, EAs or, as suitable, 

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) would 

be required for each new utility. The EA or EIS 

for each action would specify required fugitive 

dust controls. Any construction in 

nonattainment areas would have to comply with 

county dust control requirements. Typical dust 

control measures include the following:

watering unpaved roads and staging 

areas, 

prohibiting work during high winds, 

covering or watering temporary 

stockpiles, 

washing trucks entering public streets 

from construction zones, 

sweeping paved areas, including public 

streets, and 

promptly revegetating disturbed areas. 
Chapter 4

490

4.9.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Under its current management, two areas in 

Agua Fria National Monument have Special 

Designations: Larry Canyon ACEC (80 acres) 

and Perry Mesa ACEC (9,580 acres). Larry 

Canyon ACEC would continue to be closed to 

motorized vehicles under Alternative A.

Motorized vehicles in Perry Mesa ACEC are 

limited to designated roads and trails. Since 

Larry Canyon ACEC is inaccessible to vehicles, 

fugitive dust and emissions do not occur there.

Restricting motorized vehicles to designated 

roads and trails in Perry Mesa ACEC would 

allow the continued generation of fugitive dust 

and tailpipe emissions.

Emissions from OHV use at the RCA and two 

MRMAs, would likely increase as a result of 

regional population growth and increased 

regional OHV use. OHV emissions might cause 

localized, temporary air quality impacts along 

the roads and trails, but would be likely to 

contribute little to regional air quality impacts 

when compared to the much larger emissions 

generated by the densely populated Phoenix 

metropolitan area.

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area BLM would continue 

to prohibit OHV use in five wilderness areas 

(96,820 acres) and encourage OHV use on one 

back country byway (Harquahala Mountain 

Summit Road).

Increased visitor use travel along the 10.5 mile 

Harquahala Mountain Summit Road Back 

Country Byway would increase fugitive dust in 

the immediate area of Blue Tank Wash and the 

Harquahala Mountains Wilderness, but this 

increase is not considered of more than local 

significance. Motorized vehicles are prohibited 

in wilderness areas and so designation 

of wilderness areas would not contribute to air 

emissions. 

Alternative B 

Site-specific recreation prescriptions in ACECs, 

RNAs and SRMAs would likely shift OHV 

users away from these areas to sites where OHV 

recreation is allowed and intensify vehicle travel 

and OHV use in the remaining accessible areas 

long designated routes. The result would be (1) 

reduced localized air quality impacts in the new 

restricted areas and (2) increased temporary and 

localized, degraded air quality in the remaining 

OHV areas. 

Alternative C

The existing Harquahala Mountain Summit 

Road Back Country Byway, designating the 

Constellation Mine Road and Bloody Basin 

Roads as back country byways and later use of 

these roadways could attract more regional OHV 

users, drawing them away from other OHV 

areas. This shift in location is not expected to 

increase regional OHV use or regional fugitive 

dust emissions. The shift would concentrate 

more emissions onto each byway, thereby 

increasing localized air quality impacts.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

BLM‘s designation of seven ACECs would 

further shift OHV use and possible air quality 

impacts.

Reducing vehicle travel routes and use in 

Harquahala Mountains ONA would reduce 

fugitive dust emissions in the immediate area of 

these land use designations. 

Alternative D

Impacts from designating either of the two new 

ACECs would be similar to Alternative B. The 

relative shift in air quality impacts between 

newly restricted areas and the remaining

accessible areas would be greatest 

under Alternative D because it would apply new 

restrictions on the most land.

Air quality effects and fugitive dust emissions 

from vehicular travel and OHV use would be 
Chapter 4

491

curtailed by eliminating or mitigating recreation 

vehicle use in the Sheep Mountain RNA. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Site-Specific prescriptions and restrictions 

applied on ACECs along with cultural and 

wildlife management prescriptions would shift 

the locations of increases in OHV use and 

resulting fugitive dust and emissions. These 

actions would probably not affect the total future 

amounts of either OHV use or fugitive dust 

emissions throughout Agua Fria National 

Monument or the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area.

4.9.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Most of the air quality issues from Lands and 

Realty Management are related to population 

growth and emissions involving land disposal, 

as described previously in Section 4.9. From 

these sections one can conclude that BLM's 

actions are exempt from the General Conformity 

requirements and that land disposal actions 

would not delay the region's compliance with 

the air quality standards.

New residential development on previously rural 

BLM's land would have a minor effect on air 

quality immediately downwind from each new 

development. The ambient concentrations near 

each residential development would be less than 

allowable State and Federal limits. MAG's air 

quality modeling shows that regional air quality 

would continue to improve even after

accounting for future population growth.

Impacts on air quality would occur in two 

distinct phases and intensities. The first 

construction (or reconstruction) phase would 

contribute to elevated levels of criteria pollutants 

and fugitive dust, but generally over a limited 

area and only for short periods. Long-term 

impacts would result from continuing 

maintenance operations but generally at a much 

lower level of production of pollutants. All 

utility construction proposals would be subject 

to air quality restrictions (e.g. fugitive dust best 

management practices), procedures, and 

stipulations defined in site-specific 

environmental analysis of the project.

Air Quality Issues of Utility Corridors

Existing utility rights-of-way in the monument 

would be modified, removed, or maintained in 

accordance with BLM's agreements with utility 

providers for as long as the demand exists for 

the utility. Within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, all major utilities would be 

routed through designated corridors. If new 

utilities were permitted in the future, 

construction activities associated with 

development of utilities could degrade air 

quality by contributing pollutants to the air and 

increasing the emission of fugitive dust. 

Removal of vegetation and exposure of the soil 

surface to wind erosion can also contribute to air 

quality degradation. Mitigation measures could 

include (but are not limited to) application of 

water or other dust abatement during 

construction activities, maintenance of as much 

vegetation as possible, and reclamation to 

suitable vegetation in a reasonable time. 

Implementing available dust-control Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) would ensure 

that any air quality impacts would be temporary 

and would be limited to the immediate area of 

the construction.

Air Quality Impacts Caused by Ongoing 

Maintenance

Under the current management of both planning 

areas, ongoing maintenance and improvement of 

facilities and roadways would require continued 

use of construction equipment. This use would 

continue and could generate fugitive dust and 

tailpipe emissions by earthmoving and the use of 

heavy equipment. Each construction or 

maintenance action would cause a temporary, 

localized increase in ambient pollutant 

concentrations for the duration of the activity.
Chapter 4

492

Alternative B

Alternative B would narrow the existing utility 

corridor in Agua Fria National Monument. This 

change is not expected to alter existing utility 

maintenance in the corridor and new utility 

construction could be permitted, subject to air 

quality procedures and stipulations defined in 

site-specific environmental analysis of the 

project. Thus, narrowing the existing utility 

corridor is not expected to affect air quality, but 

it would shift the location of future air quality 

emissions into a smaller area.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area new 

utility corridors would be designated for future 

expected demands. These designations would 

respond to the demand for the intensification of 

the power grid and would be consistent with the 

utility regulations of the Arizona Corporation 

Commission. Designating new utility corridors 

and widening the Black Canyon corridor for 

utility development might result in new 

pipelines or transmission lines being built 

through the area. Any such construction would 

likely generate fugitive dust and tailpipe 

emissions through earthmoving and the use of 

heavy equipment.

Impacts from ongoing maintenance and 

improvement of facilities and roadways would 

be the same as Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C the Black Canyon utility 

corridor would be eliminated from Agua Fria 

National Monument. This action would maintain 

current emissions of criteria pollutants and 

fugitive dust. Though the utility corridor would 

be eliminated, BLM would continue to authorize 

existing utilities. Air quality impacts from 

ongoing maintenance would be the same as 

Alternative A. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area impacts would be the same as Alternative 

B.

Right-of-way applications in corridors would 

precipitate site-specific environmental analysis 

that would address air quality and actions to 

minimize impacts. Any construction in 

nonattainment areas would be subject to comply 

with county air quality rules.

Alternative D

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative C.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area no 

new electric and gas corridors would be 

designated. The portion of the Black Canyon 

Multi-Use corridor would be extended so that it 

would be continuous north and south on BLM's 

land. If utilities elect to use this corridor in the 

future, they would generate criteria pollutants 

and fugitive dust through earthmoving and the 

use of heavy equipment. All utility construction 

in the planning area would be subject to air 

quality restrictions, procedures, and stipulations 

defined in site-specific environmental analysis 

for the project.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts under Alternative E would be similar to 

those described for Alternative C.

4.9.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Under the current management of both planning 

areas, soil, water, and air management would 

promote soils and ground cover and implement 

preventive erosion measures. This approach 

would reduce localized emissions of naturally 

occurring windblown fugitive dust.

Increased unpaved surface management in PM10

Non-attainment areas will reduce fugitive dust 

and PM10 emissions.
Chapter 4

493

4.9.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In the Agua Fria National Monument, continued 

measures to protect biological resources, 

including the use of prescribed fire and 

mechanical vegetation treatment, may result in 

small amounts of temporary, localized emissions 

as discussed in Section 4.9.11.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

continued measures to protect ground cover, 

biological areas, and habitats would minimize 

emissions of criteria pollutants and windblown 

fugitive dust. Implementation of Land Health 

Standards is expected to result in progressive 

increases in ground cover, which would result in 

reduced production of windblown fugitive dust 

not related to roads. In addition, measures 

designed to improve wildlife habitat would limit 

disturbance from building construction, land 

clearing, removal of downed wood, or 

woodcutting, which would also reduce 

emissions of criteria pollutants.

Alternative B

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument two new 

Wildlife Habitat Areas would be allocated for 

enhancing pronghorn habitat. Four new ACECs 

would be designated for managing biological 

resources. This action would limit vehicle 

routes and prohibit new recreational site 

developments in pronghorn movement corridors, 

improving air quality in the newly designated 

areas. However, emissions might increase in the 

remaining areas where OHV use and 

recreational site developments are allowed. 

The use of prescribed fire to improve habitat for 

pronghorn would have the same impacts as those 

discussed for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

BLM would designate seven ACECs. This 

would increase the acreage under strict 

management for motorized recreation and result 

in fewer cultural resource areas devoted to 

intensive public use. Localized air quality 

impacts would be reduced in the newly restricted 

areas while increasing the temporary, localized 

air quality impacts at the remaining OHV and 

public use areas.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument two 

wildlife habitat areas and one ACEC would be 

designated for managing biological resources.

Motor vehicle routes that fragment pronghorn 

habitat and cross known pronghorn movement 

corridors would be closed, limited, or mitigated.

Alternative D would redesignate the most land 

subject to OHV restrictions. The impacts of this 

action would be similar to Alternative C, except 

that the relative shift in air quality impacts 

between newly restricted areas and the 

remaining accessible areas would be greatest 

under Alternative D.

All fences in the national monument would be 

removed. Removing fences would generate 

small amounts of localized, temporary emissions 

of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust.

The use of prescribed fire would have the same 

impacts as those discussed for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative A.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Air quality impacts under Alternative E would 

be similar to those under Alternative C.
Chapter 4

494

4.9.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

There no impacts on air quality expected from 

existing Cultural Resource Management (CRM) 

in either planning area.

Alternative B

Developing access, interpretive facilities, and 

interpretive media at selected sites would result 

in more vehicle trips as visitors in both planning 

areas. Five sites in the Agua Fria National 

Monument would be developed for high public 

use standards, which allows for the building of 

parking areas. Eight areas in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be managed as 

Special Recreation Management Areas 

(SCRMA) with sites developed for public 

visitation. The result would be increased 

emissions of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust. 

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts would 

be similar to those discussed for Alternative B.

However, impacts would be of lower magnitude 

because only one site would be developed 

to High Public Use standards and nine sites 

would be developed to Moderate Public 

Use standards.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would be similar to those discussed for 

Alternative B, except the impacts would be of 

lower magnitude because only four areas would 

be managed as SCRMAs.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument only the 

Pueblo la Plata site complex would be developed 

for public visitation. Air quality impacts from 

vehicle traffic would be limited to Bloody Basin 

Road and the Pueblo la Plata area. Therefore, 

the levels of airborne pollutants under 

Alternative D would be lower than under 

Alternatives B or C.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

levels of pollutants generated by site visits 

would be lower than under Alternatives B or C

because only two areas would be managed as 

SCRMAs with sites developed for public 

visitation.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument two sites 

would be developed for public visitation 

under High Public Use Actions, and six sites 

would be developed in accordance 

with Moderate Public Use Actions. The 

projected impacts on air quality would be lower 

than expected under Alternative B and greater 

than expected under Alternatives C and D.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, six 

areas would be managed as SCRMAs with sites 

developed for public visitation. The projected 

impacts on air quality would likely be lower 

than expected under Alternative B and greater 

than expected under Alternatives C and D.

4.9.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E 

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts to air quality expected as a 

result of paleontological resource management 

in either planning area.

4.9.7 From Recreation 

Management

Each of the Alternatives would impose new 

restrictions on motorized recreation in portions 

of the planning areas. These restrictions would 

shift OHV users away from the newly restricted 

areas but might increase OHV uses in the 

remaining areas. Adverse air quality impacts 

would be reduced in the newly restricted areas, 
Chapter 4

495

but there could be temporary, localized increases 

in emissions in the remaining areas accessible to 

OHVs.

Alternative A (No Action)

Prohibiting cross-country OHV use in Agua Fria 

National Monument would reduce levels of 

criteria pollutants and fugitive dust. In the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area OHV 

travel would generate increased emissions of 

criteria pollutants and fugitive dust.

The current recreation uses (hiking, target 

shooting, viewing prehistoric sites, and 

dispersed camping with a 14-day limit) could 

generate emissions of criteria pollutants and 

fugitive dust from OHV travel, as well as 

emissions and smoke from campfires and 

stoves. Over time, as these uses continue to 

increase, so would the emission of criteria 

pollutants associated with them. Under 

Alternative A, an unlimited number of 

competitive races could be authorized between 

October 15 and March 31, and in areas currently 

not used for such activities. This increased 

activity would potentially increase the amount of 

fugitive dust. However, all proposed races 

would be required to comply with county air 

quality standards thereby significantly reducing 

the potential for any noticeable increase of 

airborne emissions.

Areas open to camping would generate criteria 

pollutants and fugitive dust from OHV travel, as 

well as small amounts of emissions and smoke 

from campfires and stoves. The use of roadways 

and trails by motor vehicles would result in 

tailpipe emissions and fugitive dust from 

vehicular travel. Building and maintaining 

recreation-related roadways, trails, and facilities 

would generate temporary and short-lived 

emissions of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust 

from heavy equipment and earthmoving.

Cross-country non motorized travel by foot, 

horse or mountain bike can lead to the creation 

of permanent trails, sometimes called ―social‖ 

trails that braid across the landscape. These usercreated and non-engineered trails are subject to 

hardening or erosion and may cross and impact 

fragile desert soils. Cryptogammic (black crusty 

soil) soils in some desert locales and desert 

pavement areas in others are easily damaged and 

may then easily become air borne under high 

wind conditions if the damage is severe enough. 

Horses and mountain bikes can create small 

amounts of fugitive dust.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument, the emphasis 

in the Back Country RMZ would be on 

managing and maintaining the character of the 

natural landscape. In the Front Country RMZ, 

more focus could be placed on recreation and 

interpretation. OHV use in the portions of the 

national monument accessible to OHVs would 

generate emissions of criteria pollutants and 

fugitive dust.

Site-specific recreation prescriptions in ACECs, 

ONAs, RNAs, SRMAs, allocations to maintain 

wilderness characteristics, RMZs, and other 

allocations would likely shift OHV users away 

from these areas to areas where OHV recreation 

is allowed and intensify vehicle travel and OHV 

use in the remaining accessible areas along 

designated routes. The result would be (1) 

reduced localized air quality impacts in the 

newly restricted areas and (2) increased 

temporary and localized, degraded air quality in 

the remaining OHV areas.

Thus, new and displaced OHV users would 

increase criteria pollutants and fugitive dust 

concentrations in and immediately near 

designated routes. The number of competitive

races would be limited to 14 (significantly 

higher than current conditions). However 

emissions of particulate matter are not expected 

to be considerable due to mitigation measures 

placed on these races to comply with county air 

quality standards. In addition, countywide OHV 

emissions are only a small fraction of the total 

emissions generated by the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. They are unlikely to 

contribute any regional air quality impacts that 

would affect the metropolitan area or any 

sensitive areas downwind of Phoenix.
Chapter 4

496

Emissions of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust 

in the planning areas would be reduced in some 

areas by route closures or restrictions. In the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area net dirt 

roads would be reduced by 82 miles, and there 

would be 24 fewer miles of dirt road in Agua 

Fria National Monument. These route closures 

would likely reduce fugitive dust emissions in 

the immediate area along the routes. Regionally, 

these closures would not decrease vehicle use or 

emissions and fugitive dust.

Building and maintaining roadways, trails, and 

recreation facilities would generate temporary 

and short-lived emissions of criteria pollutants 

and fugitive dust from heavy equipment and 

earthmoving. BLM's development activities 

would comply with local and county dust control 

ordinances to limit emissions and fugitive dust. 

Impacts on air quality resources from crosscountry travel by non-motorized visitors are 

considered to be similar to those described under 

Alternative A.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts from 

recreation on air quality would be similar to 

Alternative B, except that more vehicle routes 

would be closed or limited to motorized 

vehicles. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

impacts of OHV use would be similar to 

Alternative B, except BLM would designate 

seven ACECs, further shifting OHV use and 

possible air quality impacts. Impacts on air 

quality resources from cross-country travel by 

non-motorized visitors are considered to be 

similar to those described under Alternative A.

Alternative C would implement well planned, 

sited, and managed SRMAs and address

intensive recreation and OHV use and vehicle 

route designations at Table Mesa, the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains, Stanton, Wickenburg, 

San Domingo Wash, and Vulture Mine locales. 

The SRMAs would reduce air quality effects and 

fugitive dust emitted by improper activity, 

scheduled OHV events, and intensive OHV use. 

The number of competitive races would be 

limited to six per year which is slightly higher 

than current conditions. Air quality emissions 

from these activities would remain the same or 

lessen over time due to management actions.

Alternative D

Vehicular access would be limited under 

Alternative D, and a Back Country RMZ would 

be established throughout most of Agua Fria 

National Monument to preserve natural 

landscapes. Most Cultural Resource 

Management areas would be designated for 

limited public use. No other areas for intensive 

public use would be developed to replace the 

areas that would become restricted. Larger areas 

would be managed for more primitive 

recreation. This approach is not expected to 

reduce overall regional emissions, but it would 

(1) shift air quality impacts away from newly 

restricted areas and (2) intensify localized air 

quality impacts in the remaining areas where 

OHV recreation remains accessible. The 

relative shift in air quality impacts between 

newly restricted areas and the remaining 

accessible areas would be greatest under 

Alternative D because it would apply new 

restrictions on the most land. Localized air 

quality impacts from non-motorized visitors 

would be similar to those described under 

Alternative A.

In Agua Fria National Monument BLM would 

issue no Special Recreation Permits. The 

decrease in visitors to the area from reduced 

recreation would lead to fewer vehicle trips, 

which would decrease emissions of criteria 

pollutants. Camping would generate criteria 

pollutants and fugitive dust from OHV travel, as 

well as small amounts of emissions and smoke 

from campfires and stoves. Building and 

maintaining roadways, trails, and facilities 

would generate emissions of criteria pollutants 

and fugitive dust from heavy equipment and 

earthmoving.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area,

new restrictions on OHV use would be enacted 
Chapter 4

497

on more land under Alternative D than under 

any of the other Alternatives.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 723 

miles of routes would be closed. The route 

closures would reduce air quality emissions and 

fugitive dust. Phasing out the use of the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA for OHV use 

would improve air quality and lessen dust 

emissions by eventually reducing and ending 

motorized activities on 16,510 acres.

Alternative D would implement well-planned, 

sited, and managed SRMAs addressing intensive 

recreation and OHV use and vehicle route 

designation at Table Mesa, the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains, Stanton, Wickenburg, San Domingo 

Wash, and the Vulture Mine areas. The result 

would be reduced air quality effects and fugitive 

dust emitted by improper activity, scheduled 

OHV events, and intensive OHV use. Under this 

alternative, no competitive races would be 

allowed. Therefore, air quality emissions from 

these activities would be expected to be reduced 

over time due to management actions.

Alternative E (Proposed Action)

Impacts of site-specific prescriptions and 

restrictions within the Agua Fria National 

Monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area would be similar to Alternative C.

The impacts of SRMAs would be similar 

to Alternative C.

The number of competitive races in this 

alternative would be limited to eight. Air quality 

effects and fugitive dust emissions would be 

negligible due to mitigation measures placed on 

these races to comply with county air quality 

standards. Therefore, air quality emissions from 

these activities would remain the same or be 

reduced over time due to management actions.

Localized impacts on air quality resources from 

cross-country travel by non-motorized visitors 

are considered to be similar to those described 

under Alternative A. The BLM would 

implement dust control measures to ensure 

compliance with new rules being developed by 

Maricopa County. Such measures could include 

prohibiting OHV use in the non-attainment area 

on days the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality forecasts high pollution 

levels in its dust forecasts. Other measures 

could include the use of dust suppressants and 

the use of gates or other barriers to exclude use 

on high pollution days. 

4.9.8 From Visual Resource 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

No policy standards are now directed toward 

visual resources.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

The managing of areas under Class I, II, and III 

standards could contribute to restrictions on 

some kinds of land development and use. The 

overall regional levels of construction-related 

pollutants and fugitive dust would be reduced if 

projects are modified or prohibited to satisfy 

VRM objectives.

4.9.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under current grazing management, proper 

grazing practices should maintain adequate 

vegetation cover to keep windblown dust levels 

to near natural conditions. In areas of livestock 

concentration (such as around waters, salt 

grounds, and corrals) vegetation cover would be 

greatly reduced, thereby increasing potential 

windblown dust emissions. The affect of this 

windblown dust is generally localized near the 

source. Implementing the Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Land Health Standards) and 

the Guidelines for Grazing Management

(Rangeland Management) would allow regular 

evaluation of grazing practices and remediation 
Chapter 4

498

of problems that might lead to reduced air 

quality.

Alternatives B

Air quality impacts of Alternative B would be 

similar to those described for Alternative A, 

except that winter-only grazing of riparian areas 

would lead to higher vegetation densities in 

those areas. These higher densities would 

slightly reduce the potential for windblown dust.

Alternative C

Impacts of Alternative C would be similar to 

those under Alternative B, except that higher 

vegetation densities in riparian areas would be 

achieved more quickly with no grazing than with 

winter-only grazing.

Alternative D

In both planning areas existing livestock grazing 

allotments would be closed and any current 

livestock authorizations would be cancelled for 

the duration of the plan. This approach would 

decrease the amount of fugitive dust generated 

by livestock removing forage and ground litter.

In addition, places livestock concentrate would 

slowly revegetate, reducing dust emissions even 

more.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

For the Agua Fria National Monument impacts 

would be the same as those described for 

Alternative B.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

expected impacts from riparian areas that are 

improving with increased vegetation would 

reduce the potential for windblown 

particulates. This impact would be so small 

that it could be discounted at a factor in the 

total particulate levels within the airshed of 

the planning area.

4.9.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no impacts expected in Agua Fria 

National Monument.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area locatable, saleable, and leasable mineral 

development could create short-term and 

periodic increased emissions of criteria 

pollutants and fugitive dust from construction, 

vehicular traffic, and other activities. Federal 

mineral rights on scattered lands that are outside 

the planning area and designated open to 

location, entry, and patenting could create shortterm and periodic increased emissions of criteria 

pollutants and fugitive dust from construction, 

vehicular traffic, and other activities. In areas 

that would remain open to mineral exploration 

and development, continued mining would result 

in long-term increases in emissions. However, 

these increases would likely be localized and are 

subject to Federal and State emission regulations 

designed to mitigate impacts to air quality. For 

facilities in nonattainment areas, such 

regulations could result in off-sets or other 

facility-specific mitigation that would reduce air 

quality impacts.

Each of the Alternatives specifies a different set 

of areas where mining would or would not be 

allowed. From the Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development Scenarios described 

for Section 4.17, one can estimate the following 

mineral development:

two oil and gas exploratory wells, which 

could disturb as much as 20 acres; 

60 to 100 small locatable mines and 1 

or two large mines, which could disturb 

1400 to 2400 acres; 

as many as 20 saleable mineral pits, 

which could disturb as much as 800 

acres, over the next 20 years. 

Air quality impacts from such mining would be 

mainly fugitive dust from equipment at the mine 
Chapter 4

499

site, in addition to dust and exhaust from haul 

trucks. Any mining in the PM10 nonattainment 

area would have to comply with Maricopa 

County dust abatement and air quality rules.

The impact of these operations would be mainly 

local (within 1/2 mile of the mine and haul road) 

and would contribute to the PM10 particulate 

count in the nonattainment area.

Alternatives B and C

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would be the same as those discussed 

for Alternative A.

Alternative D

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

reconveyed lands would be closed per public 

land order. Alternative D would also reduce the 

amount of land open to location, entry, and 

patent of locatable, saleable, and leasable 

minerals. This action would reduce emissions of 

criteria pollutants and fugitive dust.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts of Alternative E would be similar to 

those described for Alternative A.

4.9.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

The use of prescribed fire and mechanical 

vegetation treatment in the Agua Fria National 

Monument would result in short-term, localized 

episodes of smoke and reduced visibility.

Burning prescriptions account for smoke and 

contain smoke management plans. These plans 

require burning conditions that encourage rapid 

smoke dispersal and discourage smoke drift into 

either highly populated areas or ADEQ Class I 

or II airsheds. ADEQ would continue to require 

that BLM obtain prescribed burning approvals 

before each event to ensure that prescribed burns 

are conducted only during favorable weather to 

reduce air quality impacts. In this way, air 

quality impacts from prescribed burning are 

minimized.

When wildfires strike wilderness areas, 

suppression strategies are selected on a case-bycase basis in considering fire control 

opportunities, environmental impacts, and risks 

to public health and safety. Smoke might 

degrade local and regional air quality during 

these wildfires. The degree of smoke production 

and air quality impact depends on the 

suppression approach employed and the weather 

at the time of the fire. 

Wildfires both on and off the national monument 

would also increase levels of smoke and reduce 

visibility during the fire. Weather conditions 

might cause high smoke columns and smoke 

drift into both high population areas and over 

ADEQ Class I and II airsheds. In most years, 

these events are of short duration (1 week or 

less) but might persist for longer periods.

Multiple fire incidents, either simultaneously or 

sequentially, could increase the effects from 

smoke, or could increase the duration of the 

smoke impact. Typically, the fire season is from 

April through July. The use of heavy equipment 

and the mechanical thinning of trees would 

generate small amounts of temporary, localized 

emissions of fugitive dust and tailpipe exhaust.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Air quality impacts would be the same as 

described for Alternative A, except that naturally 

occurring wildfires could be managed to meet 

resource objectives in fire adapted ecosystems if 

conditions are favorable. Smoke management 

would be a consideration in making the decision 

to manage a wildfire, similar to the process 

applied for prescribed fires. The opportunity for 

smoke drift into populated areas and/or Class I 

or II airsheds would be increased over that 

described for Alternative A.
Chapter 4

500

4.9.12 From Wild Horse and 

Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.9.13 From Management of 

Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Prohibiting cross-country OHV would reduce 

levels of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust. In 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area OHV 

travel would generate increased emissions of 

criteria pollutants and fugitive dust.

Any potential opening of new routes would 

increase fugitive dust during construction as 

well as increase emissions created by vehicles 

once the route is opened. 

Alternative B

The net amount of roads closed or opened in the 

Agua Fria National Monument could have 

impacts on emissions and fugitive dust. In Agua 

Fria National Monument 134 miles of route 

would be left open and 32 net miles of route 

would be closed. Route closures could reduce 

fugitive dust created by construction as well as 

reduce emission of vehicles that used the route. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area net 

number of dirt roads would be reduced by 82 

miles, and there would be 24 fewer miles of dirt 

road in Agua Fria National Monument. These 

route closures would likely reduce fugitive dust 

emissions in the immediate area along the 

routes. Regionally, these closures would not 

decrease vehicle use or emissions and fugitive 

dust. Route closures would concentrate more 

vehicles on remaining roads and thereby 

increase localized air quality impacts and 

fugitive dust levels.

Building and maintaining roadways, trails, and 

recreation facilities would generate temporary 

and short-lived emissions of criteria pollutants 

and fugitive dust from heavy equipment and 

earthmoving. BLM development activities 

would comply with local and county dust control 

ordinances to limit emissions and fugitive dust.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument, impacts on air 

quality would be similar to Alternative B, except 

that more vehicle routes would be closed or 

limited to motorized vehicles (48 miles).

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

impacts of OHV use would be similar to 

Alternative B except BLM would designate 

seven ACECs, further shifting OHV use and

possible air quality impacts. 

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, negative 

impacts to air quality would be the least due to 

the highest amount of route closures over other 

Alternatives (123 miles).

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

1,645 miles of routes would be closed. The 

route closures would reduce opportunities for air 

quality emissions and fugitive dust.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the Agua Fria National Monument, impacts 

would be the same as Alternative B, except 

that more net route miles would be closed (52

miles).

Impacts in the Bradshaw Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those described under

Alternative B, except that routes would be 

designated through the route 

evaluation/designation process.
Chapter 4

501

4.9.14 From Management of 

Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no impacts expected.

Alternative B

Under this Alternative, 56,040 acres would be 

allocated to the management of wilderness 

characteristics. Allocations to manage 

wilderness characteristics, which would limit or 

restrict vehicle use, could intensify vehicle travel 

to remaining and nearby accessible areas. 

Wilderness character management could also 

limit, restrict or prohibit other surfacing 

disturbing activities. These actions could 

improve air quality within areas managed for 

wilderness characteristics. On-the-other-hand, 

these actions could result in temporary and 

localized degradation of air quality in other areas 

subject to increased vehicle use from displaced 

OHV users and surface disturbance from 

authorized activities.

Alternative C

Lands allocated to the management of 

wilderness characteristics under Alternative C

(107,843 acres) would limit, restrict or prohibit 

surfacing disturbing activities and further 

constrain vehicle use across a larger area than 

described under Alternative B. Otherwise, 

impacts would be the same as described in 

Alternative B.

Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as described in 

Alternative C, except that there would be 

140,235 acres allocated for management of 

wilderness characteristics, including 37,571 

acres within the Agua Fria National Monument.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be the same as described in 

Alternative B except that more area would be 

allocated to the management of wilderness 

characteristics (88,179 acres). This alternative 

would afford less protection than Alternatives C

and D.

4.10 Impacts on

Water Resources

Impacts to water resources include effects on 

watershed resources such as soils, groundwater, 

vegetation cover, and surface water quality and 

quantity. These factors contribute to the riparian 

functional condition. Riparian system proper 

functioning condition, as defined in BLM‘s 

Riparian-Wetland initiative, is also included. 

The functioning condition of riparian-wetland 

areas is a result of interaction among geology, 

soil, water, and vegetation. Riparian-wetland 

areas are in proper functioning condition under 

the following conditions:

Adequate vegetation, landform, or large 

woody debris is present to dissipate 

stream energy from high water flows, 

thereby reducing erosion and improving 

water quality. 

Sediments are filtered, bed-load is 

captured, and floodplains develop. 

Flood water retention and groundwater 

recharge are improved, root masses that 

stabilize streambanks against cutting 

action develop; and diverse ponding and 

channel characteristics are created to 

provide the habitat and the water depth, 

duration, and temperature needed for 

fish production, waterfowl breeding, and 

other uses. 

Greater biodiversity is supported. 

This analysis focuses on management actions 

that could change the hydrologic functions of the 

planning areas. The functions of most concern 

are soil compaction and vegetation removal, 

which lead to increased runoff, erosion, and later 

sediment deposition downslope or into a stream.

Please review Section 4.8 for the discussion of 

impacts on soils.
Chapter 4

502

Soil compaction along roads that traverse slopes 

can create an impermeable barrier to downslope 

subsurface water flow. This barrier can convert 

subsurface runoff to surface runoff. They can 

then route surface runoff to stream channels, and 

increase peak flows and sediment delivery to 

streams (Megan and Kidd 1972). Therefore, 

watersheds with higher road densities, especially 

roads close to streams, have a higher probability 

of increased peak flows and sediment yield.

4.10.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument, Perry Mesa ACEC is likely 

to continue to experience minor degradation of 

water quality. The degradation occurs from 

disturbances created by vehicle and OHVs 

entering stream channels near road crossings and 

the effects of delivery of sediment from 

roadways into stream channels.

The national monument‘s suitable Wild and 

Scenic River (WSR) segments would continue 

to be managed for nonimpairment to WSR

values. Management actions to preserve these 

values would limit or preclude development or 

vehicular activities that would disturb soil and 

vegetation. Moreover, no new disturbance and 

the recovery of existing disturbance would likely 

reduce erosion and sedimentation, improving the 

river‘s hydrologic functions.

Current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area has designated five 

wilderness areas: Hells Canyon (9,900 acres), 

Hassayampa River Canyon (11,840 acres), 

Harquahala Mountains (22,880 acres), 

Hummingbird Springs (31,200 acres), and Big 

Horn Mountains (21,000 acres). Under current 

management in these wilderness areas, erosion 

and sedimentation of streams would be reduced, 

and hydrologic function of the areas is likely to 

improve because of restrictions on motorized 

Table 4-3. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Acreages

ACEC Alternative A 

(Current)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

(Proposed)

Agua Fria National Monument

Agua Fria Riparian 

Corridor 

13,070

Indian Creek 330

Larry Canyon 80 50

Lousy Canyon 80

Perry Mesa 9,580

Silver Creek 350

Subtotal: 9,660 810 13,070

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

Baldy Mountain 

ONA

9,080

Belmont-Big Horn 

Mountain 

77,730

Black Mesa 5,540 5,540

Black Butte Raptor 

Area /ONA

800 14,480 8,260

Harquahala 

Mountain /ONA

41,670 74,940 74,950

Sheep Mountain 

RNA

4,270 4,270

Tule Creek 640 640 640 640

Vulture Mountain 

Raptor Area

2,790 6,120 6,120

Subtotal: 640 55,710 192,800 89,970

Total Acres: 9,660 640 56,520 205,870 89,970
Chapter 4

503

vehicles. Managing other uses to minimize 

disturbance would also improve hydrologic 

function.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B the impacts of Special Area 

Designations on water resources in the national 

monument would be the same as those described 

for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

managing Tule Creek ACEC would include its 

closure from mineral development (withdrawal 

from mineral entry). Withdrawal would 

eliminate the potential for disturbance to 

streambanks, soils, and ground cover from 

mining equipment/vehicle use and other related 

activities. In the lands closed to vehicles, former 

routes would revegetate, improving hydrologic 

function.

Alternative C

Designation of four ACECs in Agua Fria 

National Monument (Silver Creek, Indian Creek, 

Larry Creek, and Lousy Canyon) would impact 

water resources by closing the areas to grazing 

and vehicles. This would encourage 

revegetation of disturbed areas and would 

improve hydrologic function.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

six ACECs are proposed under Alternative C 

(Table 4-3). 

The following management actions would 

improve hydrologic function by encouraging 

revegetation of disturbed areas and reducing 

erosion and downstream sedimentation:

mineral entry withdrawal, 

changes or elimination of livestock 

grazing, and 

closure or mitigation of motorized 

vehicle routes. 

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, the 

designation of the Agua Fria River Riparian 

Corridor ACEC, which would include the

ACECs proposed by Alternative C, would have 

impacts similar to Alternative C. Management

actions include closing, limiting, or mitigating 

vehicle routes and planned land acquisitions 

along Indian Creek. These actions would reduce 

OHV impacts to native vegetation, streambanks, 

and water quality. This ACEC is unlikely; 

however, to result in any measure of protection 

for water resources beyond that provided by the 

proclamation (Appendix A).

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area,

impacts under Alternative D would be similar to 

those described for Alternative C, but 

Alternative D would close more areas to mineral 

entry.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Alternative E proposes to evaluate eight eligible 

tributaries of the Agua Fria River in Agua Fria 

National Monument for suitability as additions 

to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Impacts to water resources would be similar to 

those described for Alternative A, with extra 

emphasis on protecting the free-flowing 

character and outstanding wildlife, cultural, and 

scenic values along these eight streams until 

such time as they are designated as Wild and 

Scenic rivers or Congress rejects designation. It 

is expected that protective actions would 

maintain or improve water quality.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

management prescriptions for four ACECs 

(89,970 acres) would result in impacts similar to 

those described for Alternative C.
Chapter 4

504

4.10.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument, lands and realty 

management is subject to valid existing rights 

granted before the national monument‘s 

designation. Activities might continue if they 

are not precluded by the proclamation 

(Appendix A) and do not conflict with the 

established purpose.

In Agua Fria National Monument, actions for 

managing valid existing rights could lower water 

quality under the following conditions:

construction-related delivery of 

pollutants and sediment occurs near 

surface drainages, or 

areas of groundwater recharge or natural 

processes of wetland or riparian function 

(e.g. runoff rate, soil erosion rate, water 

infiltration rate) are compromised. 

Disturbances would be temporary, so hydrologic 

function would probably not change in the longterm.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

impacts from disposal of as much as 54,370 

acres outside MUs, include the potential loss 

of vegetation from developing those lands and 

possible increased erosion and sediment yield.

Eventual development of the disposal lands in 

the Upper Agua Fria River watershed could also 

increase sediment yield in the upstream 

tributaries of the Agua Fria River and lower the 

water quality in Agua Fria National Monument.

An increase in development could include an 

increase in the number of wells and increased 

groundwater use, which could lower 

groundwater levels and decrease contributions of 

groundwater to surface flows in the monument.

Acquiring privately owned and State-held lands 

in the Black Canyon and Lake Pleasant RCAs 

would create two large blocks of federally 

managed lands. These acquisitions would 

consolidate management and help develop 

healthy native plant communities in the upland 

and the riparian communities. This outcome, in 

turn, might affect water resources by increasing 

ground cover and potentially reducing sediment 

yield.

Similarly, acquiring lands in the Cordes 

Junction, Bumble Bee/Williams Mesa MRMAs, 

and the four-mile reach of State land along the 

Hassayampa River would help BLM institute the 

land health standards that would protect and 

potentially improve the vegetation and might 

reduce sediment yield.

Building and maintaining facilities in planned 

transportation/utility corridors and at 

communication sites could degrade water quality 

as construction and operation create ground 

disturbance that could lead to increased soil 

erosion and result in increased stream turbidity.

Construction could also disturb riparian 

vegetation and change the proper functioning 

condition over limited areas of construction. 

Mitigation actions to minimize water quality 

degradation would be the same as for 

minimizing soil loss.

Alternative B

The Black Canyon utility corridor would be 

maintained but narrowed. This narrowing would 

affect water resources by reducing potential 

impacts from building and operating utilities in 

the corridor. Controls on development would 

minimize runoff into streams and route 

disturbance in such a way as to minimize 

impacts to water resources.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts from disposal of land would be similar 

to Alternative A, except as much as 58,400 acres 

are available for disposal. 

Building and maintaining planned 

transportation/utility corridors and 

communication sites would have impacts similar 

to those described for Alternative A.
Chapter 4

505

Alternative C

Impacts on water resources in the Agua Fria 

National Monument would potentially be lower 

from the elimination of the Black Canyon utility 

corridor which would prohibit more utility rightof-way allocations. Impacts from operating and 

maintaining current facilities with prior existing 

rights would be similar to Alternative A.

The impacts of disposing of 49,100 acres of 

BLM-managed Federal lands would be similar 

to those for the disposal of lands under 

Alternative B.

Building and maintaining planned 

transportation/utility corridors and 

communication sites would have impacts similar 

to those described for Alternative A.

Alternative D

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the same as those described for Alternative C.

The impacts on water resources from acquiring 

private or State lands would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B.

Building and maintaining planned 

transportation/utility corridors and 

communication sites would have impacts similar 

to those described for Alternative A.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts in both planning areas would be similar 

to Alternative B.

4.10.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument water 

resources are generally expected to improve 

through applying erosion prevention measures 

such as (1) limits on grazing access along 

streams and (2) control of OHV use in the river 

corridor. Management would focus on 

maintaining and improving riparian vegetation 

cover, which would reduce streambank erosion 

and sediment yield and generally contribute to 

the proper functioning condition of riparian 

areas. In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area water resources would benefit from 

incorporating salinity control measures (such as 

runoff controls and drainage routing) into 

erosion prevention strategies and rehabilitation 

treatments. Water resources would also benefit 

from implementing strategies for assuring spring 

flows. These actions would increase riparian 

and upland vegetation cover, which would 

reduce erosion and sediment yield.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In both planning areas, management 

prescriptions for soil, air, and water resources 

would protect water quality to meet Federal and 

State standards for designated uses. Moreover, 

all land tenure decisions (such as land sales or 

exchanges) would be reviewed for their impacts 

to water resources (including protection of 

instream flows).

The alternatives progress in their protection of 

soils, air, and water resources with Alternative A

being the least protective and Alternative D

being the most protective. Therefore, 

Alternative E is similar to the protections of 

Alternative C.

4.10.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to 

water resources are expected from designating 

the Agua Fria River riparian corridor, which 

includes management actions, such as planting 

cottonwood and willow along the Agua Fria 

River and its tributaries. These changes in 
Chapter 4

506

riparian vegetation would improve functional 

condition of the riparian zone.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts to water resources are expected from 

acquiring water rights to maintain or enhance 

spring/riparian habitats in the planning unit, 

which would improve the hydrologic 

functioning condition of those systems.

Additionally, removing all burros at water 

sources in the Big Horn, Granite Wash, and 

Harquahala Mountains would reduce soil 

disturbance and potential soil erosion near those 

locations, and would promote growth of riparian 

vegetation at springs, seeps, and streams 

throughout the planning areas. 

Management prescriptions for biological 

resources would benefit water resources by 

conserving, enhancing, and restoring water 

bodies and by increasing native grasses on 

upland sites and streambanks. These grasses 

would protect soil, increase infiltration, and 

reduce sediment yield. BLM would monitor 

water quality to ensure compliance with Federal 

and State standards.

4.10.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.10.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and

E (Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.10.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the current management of both planning 

areas, sites with concentrated recreation could 

lose vegetation cover (both in riparian and 

upland vegetation communities) and undergo 

soil compaction. In riparian areas streambank 

stability could decrease. Decreased streambank 

stability could increase soil erosion, sediment 

yield, and sediment deposition.

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) would have

conditions and stipulations in place to prevent 

damage to active or seasonal water courses.

Authorized SRPs would not greatly affect 

current watershed conditions.

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area unlimited crosscountry OHV use on the public lands west of 

Highway 93 could increase soil erosion, 

sediment yield, damage to banks of drainages, 

and sediment deposition. Limiting vehicles to 

existing routes would maintain current 

conditions.

Also, in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, impacts to water resources from recreation 

management are expected from the increased 

water use by visitors and the proliferation of 

unplanned and unmanaged recreational trails and 

facilities. Increased water use includes the need 

to secure legal entitlement to water for 

recreation and domestic uses (e.g. equestrian 

trails, campgrounds) and possibly drilling wells 

or developing spring sources to provide water 

for visitors.

Impacts from recreation management include the 

following:

soil compaction from visitor use and 

OHV traffic, 

erosion due to vegetation loss,

increased sediment yield due to 

concentrated use in and near water, 
Chapter 4

507

decreased water quality by leaking OHV 

engine oil, and 

degradation of air quality by OHV 

engine emissions. 

Alternative B

In the Front Country (57,900 acres) and Passage 

(300 acres) RMZs within Agua Fria National 

Monument sediment would continue to move 

from roadways into stream channels in certain 

areas open to OHV use. OHVs crossing streams 

would continue to increase turbidity in stream 

channels. OHVs crossing streams could degrade 

water quality by leaking engine oil. In 

Alternative B there would be 134 miles of open 

motorized route.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area,

allocating eight SRMAs and two areas to 

maintain wilderness characteristics for 

management of recreation use could reduce soil 

erosion and sediment yield into drainages due to 

(1) building new facilities, such as parking lots 

and staging areas, and (2) maintaining a diverse 

network of motorized vehicle routes. These 

actions would harden some of the heavily used 

areas and would require motorized vehicles to 

stay on designated trails. Some activities that 

degrade water resources, as described in 

Alternative A, would continue. 

Alternative C

In the Agua Fria National Monument, impacts 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B; except the Front Country RMZ 

would be reduced to 42,000 acres and the 

Passage RMZ would be reduced to 700 acres.

Open motorized routes would also be reduced to 

123 miles.

Impacts under Alternative C are expected to be 

similar to those described for Alternative B, but 

to a lesser degree due to (1) an increase in closed 

miles of motorized routes (Appendix N) and (2) 

the addition of more-restrictive motorized and 

non-motorized recreation prescriptions in nine 

SRMAs, six areas allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics, three ONA ACECs, 

one RNA ACEC, and nine other ACECs.

Alternative D

In the Agua Fria National Monument, impacts 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C; except the Front Country RMZ 

would be reduced to 1,530 acres and the Passage 

RMZ would be 990 acres. Open motorized 

routes would also be reduced to a total of 48

miles.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts are expected to be similar to those 

described for Alternative C, but to a significantly 

lesser degree. Alternative D proposes a greater 

net closure of motorized travel routes and the 

addition of more-restrictive motorized and nonmotorized recreation travel prescriptions in nine 

SRMAs.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the national monument, impacts would be 

similar to Alternative B, while there would be 

moderately restrictive limitations on vehicular 

access and visitor use in a Back Country Zone of 

57,650 acres. Riparian and upland vegetation 

would benefit from decreased access, resulting 

in improved functional condition of riparian 

zones. As a result, improvements would occur 

in streams from increased riparian zone health 

and streambank stabilization, enhancing stream 

morphology. 

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area are expected to be similar to those 

described for Alternative C. As modeled in 

Appendix N, the net closure of motorized travel 

routes would be similar to those in Alternative B.

Application of motorized and non-motorized 

recreation travel prescriptions would occur in 

three large SRMAs and six Recreation 

Management Zones (RMZs). 
Chapter 4

508

4.10.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no impacts expected.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Applying VRM Class I, II, and III standards and 

objectives to all new projects and land use 

authorizations could result in restrictions on 

some kinds of land development and use in the 

national monument and in all management 

units. Streams and drainages would experience 

decreased delivery of sediment due to 

limitations on construction projects and OHV 

use.

4.10.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Except for the Larry Canyon ACEC, livestock 

grazing would continue under the terms of 

existing permits and leases. Impacts to water 

resources would include trampling and reduced 

vegetation, resulting in increased soil erosion in 

riparian areas (see Section 4.8). Livestock 

grazing in riparian areas can also reduce 

streambank stability by reducing vegetation 

cover. This can lead to increased sediment 

yield, sediment deposition in streams, and 

possible changes in stream morphology, which 

reduces the functional condition of the riparian 

system.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

applying rangeland health standards to livestock 

grazing would decrease soil disturbance, 

compaction, and erosion. Water resources would 

benefit from reduced sediment yield and 

deposition in streams, as well as from enhanced 

overall riparian functional condition. In both 

planning areas the guidelines adopted in Arizona 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration (see 

Rangeland Management) would benefit water 

resources by:

maintaining or promoting ground cover 

that would provide for infiltration, 

permeability, soil moisture storage, and 

soil stability suitable for the ecological 

sites in management units; and 

maintaining or promoting sufficient 

vegetation to maintain sediment capture, 

groundwater recharge, and streambank 

stability, thus promoting stream channel 

morphology (e.g. gradient, width/depth 

ratio, channel roughness, and sinuosity) 

and functions suitable to climate and 

landform. 

With the implementing of these guidelines, 

hydrologic function would improve with 

decreases in soil erosion, sediment yield, and 

sediment deposition in streams.

Alternative B

In both planning areas, impacts to water 

resources from rangeland/grazing management 

in uplands would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A except that grazing in riparian 

areas would be limited to winter, which would 

further reduce impacts to riparian hydrologic 

functions. This practice would reduce impacts to 

riparian vegetation and provide enhanced 

stabilization of stream morphology and 

decreased stream erosion.

Alternative C

In both planning areas, impacts to water 

resources from grazing in uplands would be 

similar to those described for Alternative A, 

except that upland grazing would be greatly 

reduced and grazing in riparian areas would be 

eliminated. This would further reducing impacts 

to hydrologic functions and significantly 

improve riparian vegetation and stream 

morphology.
Chapter 4

509

Alternative D

In both planning areas water resources would 

benefit from the following:

closing existing livestock grazing 

allotments, 

canceling all current livestock 

authorizations for the duration of the 

plan, and 

building fencing to control livestock use 

of the unfenced public lands. 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative D would 

cause the greatest improvement in water 

resources and riparian zone vegetation. Soil 

disturbance, sediment yield, and sediment 

deposition in streams would be lower than under 

any other alternative.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

For the national monument, impacts would 

be the same as those under Alternative B, under 

which livestock would only graze in riparian 

areas during winter. Vehicular access would 

also be limited in the Back Country RMZ, which 

would benefit both riparian and upland 

vegetation to some extent by lessening damage 

to riparian areas, thus improving the overall 

functional condition of hydrologic processes in 

the riparian zones. Decreased erosion and 

sediment loading in streams would result.

For the Harquahala-Bradshaw Planning Area, 

impacts would be similar to Alternative A. 

management actions would focus on improving 

proper functioning condition; although, no 

specific restrictions are prescribed at this time.

Restrictions such as seasonal grazing limitations 

could be implemented if monitoring finds 

deteriorating functional conditions.

4.10.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

For the national monument all Federal minerals 

would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral 

entry, including exploration. Thus, no impacts to 

water resources are expected from new mining 

claims. Valid existing mining claims might be 

developed, which could degrade water 

resources. These claims are gold placer claims. 

They could affect water resources if they are 

developed, because stream gravels are processed 

by suction dredge and washed and screened to 

concentrate the gold particles. Impacts from 

placer mining could include the following:

increasing sediment and turbidity in the 

stream, 

disrupting the streambed, 

changing stream morphology, and 

altering streamflow patterns and 

possibly riparian areas. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

should exploration or development of mineral 

resources be pursued, special stipulations would 

be incorporated into the operating plan after the 

results of site-specific environmental 

assessments for each action are known. Impacts 

cannot be projected before preparing such 

assessments, which would include methods, 

mitigation, and rehabilitation plans to meet the 

required conditions established in aquifer 

protection permits, Section 404 permits, and 

other permits for protecting water quality.

Adverse effects to water resources from 

minerals management would then be minimized.

Locatable Minerals

The planning area would generally be left open 

to mineral location and development. 

Exploration for and development of locatable 

minerals are likely to somewhat degrade water 

resources and could result in increased soil 

erosion, sediment yield, and sediment deposition 

in streams, and changes in stream 
Chapter 4

510

morphology. BLM would continue to 

administer mining in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area on a case-by-case basis and 

comply with regulations to prevent unnecessary 

and undue degradation of the environment (43 

CFR 3715 and 43 CFR 3809).

Saleable Minerals

BLM-administered mineral estate serves as a 

major source of aggregate. Removing aggregate 

from floodplains could impair floodplain 

hydrologic function by destabilizing 

streambanks and contributing to increased 

erosion and sedimentation. Increased soil 

erosion, sediment yield, and sediment deposition 

in streams could also result. 

Leasable Minerals

Areas open to leasable mineral development 

under current management could become a 

potential source of water quality degradation, if 

they are mined.

Alternative B

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the same as for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

potential impacts on water resources are related 

to the amount of land open to mineral 

development (see Table 4-4). All Federal lands 

would be open to mineral entry except for areas 

legislatively withdrawn and other specially 

segregated areas. Impacts for this Alternative 

would be similar to Alternative A.

Alternative C

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the same as for Alternative A.

As in Alternative B, potential impacts in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area are related 

to the amount of land open to mineral 

development. Under this Alternative, the 

impacts would be substantially lower than those 

under Alternative B because more land would be 

removed from mineral development.

Alternative D

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the same as for Alternative A.

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be lowest under this Alternative 

since the most amount of land would be 

removed from mineral development.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the same as for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

under Alternative E, impacts would be similar to 

those under Alternative A, except that riparian 

areas in the Black Canyon corridor would be 

closed to mineral material disposal, which would 

keep activity that could reduce water quality 

from occurring in those areas.

For the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts to mining would be the same as those 

under Alternative B.

4.10.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Where prescribed burning is conducted in the 

planning areas the use of heavy equipment could 

disturb soil cover, thereby increasing soil 

erosion and stream sedimentation. The benefits 

of prescribed burning would greatly outweigh 

the potential harm from the use of heavy 

equipment.

Prescribed burning would allow fire to create a 

natural mosaic and establish vegetation 

communities of uneven age classes. Species 

diversity would be maintained, desirable 

perennial grasses would increase, and brush 
Chapter 4

511

would decrease. This would increase ground 

cover, which results in increased infiltration and 

reduced runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.

Because fire-related disturbances are temporary,

long-term impacts to water resources would be 

unlikely.

For both planning areas, fire suppression will 

use the appropriate management response based 

on assessments of case-specific conditions. The 

effectiveness of the resultant strategies will 

determine the amount of acreage that is burned.

Depending on the severity and extent of the fire 

and the suppression tactics implemented, there 

could be impacts on soil repellency to water

that could affect the potential for successful 

revegetation of an area.

Typically there is a mosaic effect within the 

burn area, short term impacts from the increase 

in bare ground will include a substantial increase 

in runoff, and corresponding sediment loads 

carried by these increased flows. Long term 

impacts could include altered channel 

morphology from greater peak flood events. 

The planning areas have substantial rock and 

gravels that slow flow that moderate the effects 

from the large runoff events.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In both planning areas, fire use, including 

natural starts, prescribed burning and 

mechanical treatments, would have impacts 

similar to those described in Alternative A for 

the Agua Fria National Monument. 

4.10.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

No wild horses or burros are present in Agua 

Fria National Monument, so no impacts would 

occur.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

removing burros that damage sensitive areas, 

such as Browns Canyon, would allow those 

areas to recover from intense use, leading to 

improved vegetation conditions on streambanks 

and improved hydrologic function.

4.10.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Proliferation of unplanned and unmanaged 

routes could continue to degrade stream bank 

stability and water resources.

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area unlimited crosscountry OHV use on the public lands west of 

Highway 93 could increase soil erosion, 

sediment yield, damage to banks of drainages, 

and sediment deposition. Limiting vehicles to 

existing routes would maintain current 

conditions. 

Alternative B 

In Agua Fria National Monument, sediment 

would continue to move from roadways into 

stream channels in certain areas open to OHV 

use. OHVs crossing streams would continue to 

increase turbidity in stream channels. OHVs 

crossing streams could degrade water quality by 

leaking engine oil. 

Closing routes would reduce the above 

described impacts. Riparian and upland 

vegetation would benefit from decreased access, 

resulting in improved functional condition of 

riparian zones. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

maintaining a diverse network of motorized 

vehicle routes would harden some of the heavily 

used areas and would require motorized vehicles 

to stay on designated trails.
Chapter 4

512

Alternative C

Impacts under Alternative C are expected to be 

similar to those described for Alternative B, but 

to a lesser degree due to an increase in closed 

miles of motorized routes.

Alternative D

Impacts are expected to be similar to those 

described for Alternative C, but to a significantly 

lesser degree. Alternative D proposes a greater 

net closure of motorized travel routes.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the national monument, impacts would be 

similar to those under Alternative C and D 

because of moderately restrictive limitations on 

vehicular access and visitor use.

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area are expected to be similar to those 

described for Alternative C.

4.10.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

Currently no areas are allocated for the 

management of wilderness characteristics. As a 

result, no impacts are expected.

Alternative B

In the Agua Fria National Monument no impacts 

are expected.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, 56,040 acres would be allocated for the 

management of wilderness characteristics.

These management areas could reduce soil 

erosion and sediment yield into drainages caused 

by human activity.

Alternative C

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B,

except that a larger area would be allocated 

for management of wilderness characteristics 

(107,843 acres).

Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B

except that 140,235 acres would be allocated for 

management of wilderness characteristics. This 

allocation would include 37,571 acres within the 

Agua Fria National Monument.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B

except that 88,179 acres would be allocated for 

management of wilderness characteristics. 

4.11 Impacts on 

Biological Resources

Data Summary/Analytical Assumptions

All activities undertaken or authorized by the 

BLM are subject to standard policy and 

guidance for the implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act and the National 

Environmental Policy Act. These policies and 

procedures should be fundamental 

considerations when evaluating the impacts of 

management actions and decisions on listed 

species.

4.11.1 From Special 

Designations

The designation of special areas like ACECs and 

wild and scenic rivers generally benefit most 

wildlife species and their habitats by limiting or 

restricting activities and uses that can degrade 

habitat. While these types of designations can 

restrict some kinds of conflicting uses, they may 

also restrict some types of wildlife management 

activities and can result in increased visitor use 
Chapter 4

513

depending on the specific management 

prescriptions for an area. The increased visitor 

use can disturb some species and can degrade 

habitat quality in high-use areas. Other types of 

designations like back country byways can result 

in increased visitor use and have little or no 

direct benefit to biological resources but can 

provide the opportunity for public information 

and education about biological issues.

Alternative A (No Action)

According to the current management guidance 

for Agua Fria National Monument, designating 

Larry Canyon and Perry Mesa ACECs are 

decisions that would remain in place following 

the implementing of this RMP. The 80-acre 

Larry Canyon ACEC was designated to protect 

pristine riparian habitat. As a result, motor 

vehicles and mineral entry are prohibited.

However, Larry Canyon ACEC is located 

entirely within a steep canyon inaccessible to 

cattle and without any vehicle routes. Because 

the National Monument Proclamation withdrew 

the area from mineral entry, retaining the ACEC 

designation provides no measure of protection 

not otherwise provided by the 

proclamation (Appendix A).

Perry Mesa ACEC would provide the same level 

of protection from OHV impacts as provided by 

the proclamation.

In the suitable WSR segments of the Agua Fria 

River and eight tributaries, wildlife habitat 

would benefit from actions taken to protect 

values that define suitability for designation. 

Vehicle restrictions would reduce streambank 

erosion, water quality degradation, and adverse 

impacts to riparian vegetation and wildlife 

habitat.

Retaining the Harquahala Mountain Summit 

Scenic Road, which is an unpaved OHV route, 

would harm wildlife. Vehicle traffic along the 

route would occasionally disturb bighorn sheep 

and occasionally kill desert tortoises. 

Management actions in designated wilderness 

areas (Hells Canyon, Hassayampa River 

Canyon, Harquahala Mountains, Hummingbird 

Springs, and Big Horn Mountains) would 

protect vegetation and wildlife habitat by 

continuing to restrict OHV use of these areas.

Alternative B

As in Alternative A, in Agua Fria National 

Monument continued management of the 

areas suitable for Wild and Scenic River

corridors would protect sensitive riparian 

habitat. Designating Bloody Basin Road as a 

back country byway would likely increase 

recreation use of the area, thereby increasing 

ground disturbance from vehicular use and 

periodic maintenance. Wildlife deaths might 

occur as vehicular use increases. Bloody Basin 

Road crosses both arms of the pronghorn 

antelope movement corridor, near the Horseshoe 

Ranch and west of Badger Springs Wash, 

connecting habitat in Agua Fria National 

Monument to habitat in the Prescott and Tonto 

National Forests. Increased recreational use of 

the Bloody Basin Road Back Country Byway 

might impede pronghorn movement in the 

corridor and potentially alter behavior, including 

breeding.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

designating Tule Creek ACEC would protect 1.3 

miles of riparian habitat for the endangered Gila 

topminnow and other riparian and aquatic 

species by focusing conservation management 

on the area‘s regionally important deciduous 

riparian vegetation. Closing the stream channel 

to vehicle use and livestock grazing and 

withdrawing this area from mineral entry would 

do the following:

protect streambanks, 

reduce soil erosion, and 

limit riparian habitat damage from 

mining equipment/vehicle use and other 

mining.

The management actions would benefit 640 

acres of Category II desert tortoise habitat by 

providing more protection and management 

emphasis to the area.
Chapter 4

514

Designating the Constellation Mine Road as a 

Back Country byway could increase recreational 

use of the roadway and could increase human 

disturbance of wildlife populations and vehiclerelated wildlife mortality.

Impacts from wilderness management would be 

the same as described for Alternative A.

Alternative C

Four new ACECs would be created in the 

national monument to protect 810 acres of rare 

riparian deciduous forest and habitat that 

supports the Gila chub, yellow-billed cuckoo, 

and several other priority species. Limiting 

vehicular travel in the Silver Creek (350 acres), 

Indian Creek (330 acres), Larry Creek (50 

acres), and Lousy Canyon (80 acres) ACECs 

would have little effect on wildlife because only 

Silver Creek has any vehicular access which is 

only a single ford. As in Alternative A, 

these ACECs are unlikely to result in any 

measure of wildlife habitat protection beyond 

that currently provided by the Monument 

Proclamation (Appendix A), the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), and Land Health Standards.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area six 

ACECs are proposed for designation under 

Alternative C: Harquahala Mountains (41,670 

acres), Vulture Mountains (2,790 acres), Black 

Butte Raptor (800 acres), Sheep Mountain RNA 

(4,270 acres), Black Mesa (5,540 acres), and 

Tule Creek (640 acres).

The management actions for designating the 

Harquahala Mountain ACEC would (1) increase 

forage for bighorn sheep by reducing livestock 

competition during lambing season and (2) 

protect unique vegetation communities.

Banning new vehicle routes would reduce 

impacts to vegetation and the likelihood of 

habitat fragmentation. Spring sources would be 

protected from livestock impacts, increasing 

riparian vegetation, wildlife cover, and forage.

Management actions would better protect desert 

tortoise habitat from conflicting human 

activities. Some temporary impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife habitat might occur 

during fence building to exclude livestock from 

springs.

Management actions related to designating the 

Vulture Mountains and Black Butte ACECs 

would benefit nesting raptors by reducing the 

potential for human harassment within 1/2 mile 

of nest sites during the nesting season and 

providing added protection against disturbance 

of adjacent foraging areas. The actions would 

also provide more protection for desert tortoise 

habitat from conflicting human activities.

Management actions related to designating the 

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC would benefit 

wildlife, including desert tortoises, by reducing 

human harassment and providing some 

protection of habitat from ground disturbances, 

including mining. 

Impacts related to designating Tule Creek 

ACEC would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B. Impacts related to designating 

Constellation Mine Road as a back country 

byway would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B. Designating Black Mesa ACEC, 

Table 4-5. Desert Tortoise Habitat Acres and Riparian Miles by Alternative

Desert Tortoise Habitat Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

ACEC (Total Acres) 9,660 640 56,520 205,870 89,970

Category 1 (ac) 0 0 60,420 114,500 51,570

Category II (ac) 0 640 15,310 106,030 19,040

Category III (ac) 0 0 2,050 15,510 7,750

Riparian (mi) 15.50 1.30 10.40 49.50 1.70

WHA (Total Acres) 0 64,220 196,510 57,530 179,640

Category I (ac) 0 60,420 6,520 0 3,610

Category II (ac) 0 1,710 129,590 2,850 129,340

Category III (ac) 0 2,050 7,840 3,630 4,040

Riparian (mi) 0 0.40 14.70 5.00 14.70
Chapter 4

515

while not specifically for biological resources, 

would provide management emphasis and some 

degree of habitat protection from mining 

disturbances. Wilderness management would 

have the same impacts as described for 

Alternative A.

The designation of these ten total ACECs in the 

planning areas would add additional protection 

to 60,420 acres of Category I desert tortoise 

habitat, 15,310 acres of Category II habitat and 

2,050 acres of Category III habitat as well as 

emphasize protection of 10.4 miles of riparian 

habitat. See Table 4-5 for comparisons of 

tortoise and riparian habitats protected in 

ACECs and Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) by 

alternative.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument the Agua Fria 

River Riparian Corridor ACEC (13,070 acres) 

would include the ACECs proposed by 

Alternative C but would also incorporate much 

more riparian habitat. Management actions 

include closing, limiting, or mitigating vehicle 

routes and prioritizing land acquisitions along 

Indian Creek. These actions would benefit 

wildlife species and habitat, including the Gila 

chub, yellow-billed cuckoo, and several other 

priority species in a few areas. OHV impacts to 

native vegetation, streambanks, and water 

quality would be reduced. However, this ACEC 

is unlikely to result in any measure of wildlife 

habitat protection beyond that provided by 

the Monument Proclamation (Appendix A), the 

Endangered Species Act, and Land Health 

Standards.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

eight ACECs are proposed for designation under 

Alternative D: the Baldy Mountain ONA (9,080 

acres), Sheep Mountain RNA (4,270 acres), 

Vulture Mountains (6,120 acres), Harquahala 

Mountains ONA (74,940 acres), Belmont-Big 

Horn Mountains (77,730 acres), Black Butte 

Raptor ONA (2,580 acres), Black Mesa (5,540 

acres), and Tule Creek (640 acres).

Management actions and impacts related to 

designating Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC would 

be similar to those described for Alternative C, 

but would also include removing all fencing, 

which would allow unimpaired movement of 

wildlife with large home ranges.

Fencing would be removed because grazing 

would be eliminated on BLM's lands.

The Vulture Mountains ACEC would expand 

the ACEC from 2,790 acres to 6,120 acres, 

protecting rator nest sites from disturbances and 

raptor foraging habitat within 1 mile of the 

cliffs. Closure of the area to mineral entry, 

would protect nesting raptors and desert tortoise 

habitat from a wider range of potential threats

over a larger area than Alternative C.

Black Butte Raptor ONA ACEC would be 

expanded to 14,480 acres to protect a larger 

area. The impacts would include the closure of 

the area to mineral entry, protecting nesting 

raptors and desert tortoise habitat from a wider 

range of potential threats over a larger area than 

Alternative C.

Management actions in Harquahala Mountains 

ACEC would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C but would include prohibiting the 

building of new livestock fences and removing 

all fencing, which would facilitate wildlife 

movement throughout the area. Closing the 

ACEC to all forms of mineral entry would result 

in minimal human intrusion and less ground 

disturbance from mining. These management 

actions would benefit the resident bighorn sheep 

population, desert tortoises, and other wildlife 

by reducing mining impacts to vegetation.

Designating Belmont-Big Horn Mountains 

ACEC would benefit wildlife populations and 

habitat by doing the following:

reducing or limiting vegetation

disturbance and harassment from some 

activities, 

potentially acquiring important habitat, 

and 
Chapter 4

516

eliminating fences that hinder deer and 

bighorn sheep movement. 

Management actions would add management 

emphasis and protection to desert tortoise 

habitat.

Designating Baldy Mountain ACEC would 

benefit wildlife, including desert tortoises, by 

reducing human harassment and providing some 

protection of habitat from ground disturbances, 

including mining. 

Impacts of designating Tule Creek ACEC would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B

but would include protecting more area from 

vehicle disturbances, which affect upland 

wildlife, including desert tortoises. 

Impacts from wilderness management would be 

the same as described for Alternative A.

The designation of these nine ACECs would add 

additional protection to 66,940 acres of Category 

I desert tortoise habitat, 167,710 acres of 

Category II habitat and 6,000 acres of Category 

III habitat as well as emphasize protection of 

49.5 miles of riparian habitat. See Table 4-5 for 

comparisons of tortoise and riparian habitats 

protected in ACECs and WHAs by Alternative. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts of 

designating Bloody Basin Road as a Back 

Country byway would not occur therefore it 

would not have the impacts described in 

Alternative B.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area four 

ACECs are proposed for designation:

Harquahala Mountains ACEC (74,950 acres), 

Vulture Mountains ACEC (6,120 acres), Black 

Butte ACEC (8,260 acres), and Tule Creek 

ACEC (640 acres).

Impacts of designating Tule Creek ACEC would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B.

Management actions for designating the Vulture 

Mountains ACEC would benefit nesting raptors 

by reducing the potential for human harassment 

within 1 mile of nest sites during the nesting 

season and by providing added protection 

against disturbance of adjacent foraging areas.

The actions would better protect desert tortoise 

habitat from conflicting human activities.

Designating and managing the Harquahala 

Mountains ACEC would reduce motor vehicle 

disturbances to bighorn sheep, desert tortoises, 

and other wildlife. It would also set a high 

priority on restoring and maintaining vegetation 

diversity, spring sources, and healthy wildlife 

populations. Limiting the building of new roads 

and fences would facilitate wildlife movement 

throughout the area. Allocating the area as 

VRM Class II may affect wildlife management 

activities (see Section 4.11.8 From Visual 

Resource Management). Developing visitor 

facilities might alter wildlife movement through 

and around those facilities.

Management actions for designating the Black 

Butte ACEC would benefit nesting raptors (1) 

by reducing the potential for human harassment 

within 1 mile of nest sites during the nesting 

season and (2) by providing added protection 

against disturbance of adjacent foraging areas.

The actions would better protect desert tortoise 

habitat from conflicting human activities.

Allocating the area as VRM Class II may affect 

wildlife management activities (see Section

4.11.8 From Visual Resource Management).

The designation of these four ACECs would add 

additional protection to 74,490 acres of Category 

I desert tortoise habitat, 19,040 acres of 

Category II habitat and 7,780 acres of Category 

III habitat as well as emphasize protection of 1.7 

miles of riparian habitat. See Table 4-5 for 

comparisons of tortoise and riparian habitats 

protected in ACECs and WHAs by Alternative. 

Impacts from wilderness management would be 

the same as described for Alternative A.
Chapter 4

517

4.11.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Lands and realty authorizations and activities, 

with the exception of land acquisitions, can be 

detrimental to biological resources and can 

result in a loss of habitat quantity or quality. 

The effects of these types of activities and 

actions are described in more detail in the 

following section.

Building more utilities, transportation corridors, 

and communications sites can disturb vegetation 

in the facility footprint and could encourage the 

establishment of invasive weeds in or next to the 

disturbed areas. The designation of 

transportation and utility corridors and 

communication sites can allow these types of 

facilities to be placed in locations where the 

adverse impacts to biological resources are 

minimized or reduced.

Linear features normally authorized by right-ofway can have the following affects:

fragment habitat, 

prevent wildlife movement, 

result in loss of habitat

result in wildlife collisions, 

increase human presence and 

harassment, 

displace individual animals, 

degrade habitat quality, and 

facilitate long-term human population 

growth. 

Land disposals remove lands from Federal 

ownership and administration thus removing 

protections afforded by some Federal 

environmental regulations including NEPA and 

Section 7 of the ESA. Land acquisitions have 

the opposite effects.

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument, continued use 

of the existing utility right-of-way is expected to 

temporarily harm vegetation because of ground 

disturbance during operation and maintenance.

These activities can also encourage the 

establishment of invasive weeds in or next to the 

disturbed areas.

Acquiring privately owned and State-held lands 

in the Black Canyon and the Lake Pleasant 

RCAs would create two large blocks of federally 

managed lands. These blocks would consolidate 

management and help develop healthy native 

plant communities in upland and riparian 

communities. Healthy native plant 

communities, in turn, would benefit wildlife, 

including special status species; such as desert 

tortoise, by providing adequate forage, cover, 

and breeding habitat.

Similarly, acquiring lands in the Cordes 

Junction, Bumble Bee, and Williams Mesa 

MRMAs and the four-mile reach of State land 

along the Hassayampa River would help BLM 

institute the Land Health Standards that would 

protect and restore wildlife habitat in these 

areas.

Building and operating facilities in the MeadePhoenix and Parker-Liberty transportation 

corridors, the Central Arizona Project corridor, 

the future gas line corridor, and the El Paso 

Natural Gas Company‘s No. 1104 corridor could 

create barriers to wildlife movement and disturb 

Category I, II, and III tortoise habitat.

Decisions contained in the recently finalized 

amendment to the Lower Gila North MFP allow 

for disposal of lands containing threatened or 

endangered species habitat if other public uses 

outweigh the value of the federal lands as 

endangered species habitat. While there is 

currently no endangered species habitat in the 

area covered by these decisions, should a species 

occurring in the area be listed in the future, 

disposal would likely adversely affect the 

species.

Acquiring high resource value lands in the MFP 

area would allow consolidation and federal 

protection of priority species and priority 

habitats.
Chapter 4

518

Mitigation actions could include (but would not 

be limited to) avoidance of sensitive habitat, 

remediation of disturbance to habitat, or 

compensation for lost habitat.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument narrowing the 

Black Canyon utility corridor would reduce 

potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife 

habitat during the building and operating of 

utilities.

Impacts from disposing of up to 58,400 acres of 

land outside the MUs would include the

potential loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat 

on those lands.

Acquiring lands meeting the criteria described 

for Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives would benefit vegetation and 

wildlife by consolidating management under 

Federal ownership and reducing the potential for 

habitat disturbance from non-Federal projects.

Building and maintaining facilities in planned 

transportation and utility corridors and 

communication sites would have similar impacts 

to those described for Alternative A. The Black 

Canyon Corridor would be expanded one mile 

west of its current western boundary to 

accommodate future utilities outside the national 

monument. There are no current plans by 

industry to construct additional utility lines 

through that corridor within the life of this plan.

Proposals for utility development would be 

confined to the expanded corridor and impacts 

would be addressed in an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact Analysis 

conducted when a project is proposed.

Alternative C

Eliminating the Black Canyon utility corridor 

would prohibit more utility rights-of-way in 

Agua Fria National Monument. No other utility 

impacts to vegetation or wildlife habitat are 

expected beyond operating and maintaining the 

existing facilities with prior existing rights.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, the 

impacts on biological resources from acquiring 

non-Federal lands and disposing of up to 49,100 

acres of BLM-managed Federal land would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B. 

Building and maintaining planned transportation 

and utility corridors and communication sites 

would have similar impacts to those described 

for Alternative A. The Black Canyon Corridor 

would be expanded two miles west of its current 

western boundary to accommodate future 

utilities outside the national monument. There 

are no current plans by industry to construct 

additional utility lines through that corridor 

within the life of this plan. Proposals for utility 

development would be confined to the expanded 

corridor and impacts would be addressed in an 

Environmental Assessment or Environmental 

Impact Analysis conducted when a project is 

proposed.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, eliminating 

the Black Canyon utility corridor would have 

impacts similar to those described for 

Alternative C.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

building and maintaining facilities in planned 

transportation and utility corridors and at 

communication sites would have impacts similar 

to those described for Alternative A. The portion 

of the Black Canyon corridor west of Interstate 

17 would remain the same as it is currently, but 

the corridor would be expanded south to include 

BLM's land past Black Canyon City and across 

Table Mesa. This would create a couple of very 

narrow places in the corridor which may make it 

impractical for future utility development, or 

which would limit placement of facilities, 

increasing the possibility of having power line 

towers impacting sensitive resources.

The impacts on biological resources from 

acquiring private or State lands would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B.
Chapter 4

519

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument, narrowing the 

Black Canyon utility corridor would have 

impacts similar to those described for 

Alternative B.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area the 

impacts on biological resources from acquiring 

non-Federal lands and disposing of up to 38,755 

acres of BLM-managed lands would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B except fewer 

acres are available for potential disposal.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

building and maintaining facilities in planned 

transportation and utility corridors and at 

communication sites would have impacts similar 

to those described for Alternative A, but the 

portion of the Black Canyon corridor west of 

Interstate 17 would be expanded westward one

mile from the Bumblebee area south, and one 

miles from Bumblebee north. The impacts of 

the corridor expansion would be similar to those 

describe in Alternative B.

The impacts on biological resources from 

acquiring private or State lands would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B.

4.11.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Soil, air, and water resource management 

activities are all designed to restore or maintain 

resource conditions which also enhance the 

conservation of species and habitats. These 

activities may allow some level of loss or 

degradation associated with multiple use, but

overall BLM would strive to achieve the longterm conservation of the resources.

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Implementing activity plans to maintain or 

improve watershed conditions, soil cover, and 

water flows would benefit biological resources 

by maintaining or improving riparian vegetation 

quality, species diversity, and water quality in 

select drainages.

4.11.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Biological resource management allocations, 

objectives and management actions are all 

designed to enhance the conservation of species 

and/or habitats. These activities may allow 

some level of habitat loss or degradation 

associated with multiple use, but BLM would 

strive to achieve the long-term conservation of 

biological resources with emphasis on priority 

species and priority habitats.

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument, proposed 

landscape improvements, such as cottonwood 

and willow plantings along the Agua Fria River 

and its tributaries, would increase the density 

and quality of the riparian plant communities 

and improve the quality of wildlife habitat.

Firewood collection within the monument would 

be prohibited where it affects wildlife habitat, so 

no impact to biological resources is expected.

Continued stocking of federally listed sensitive 

native fish such as the Gila chub, Gila 

topminnow, and desert pupfish, into suitable 

habitat in the Agua Fria watershed could 

increase the population size, geographic 

distribution, and overall viability of these native 

fishes.

Modifying livestock fencing would facilitate 

pronghorn antelope movement between lambing 

and foraging areas.

Protecting Arrastre Creek, Antelope Creek, 

Weaver Creek, and the Harquahala Mountains 

would maintain vegetation and wildlife habitat.

Cooperating with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AGFD) to acquire water rights in 
Chapter 4

520

addition to reducing competition for water 

among big game species, livestock, and burros 

would ensure the legal availability of water and 

maintenance of flows in seeps and springs 

throughout the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area. This water would maintain aquatic and 

wetlands vegetation and wildlife.

The use of native plant species when restoring or 

rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands 

would reestablish native rangeland plant 

communities and improve forage and habitat 

quality for wildlife.

Protecting significant cliff areas in the Big Horn 

and Vulture Mountains and the Black Butte area 

would benefit raptors, including golden eagles, 

by reducing human harassment during their 

nesting season. Limits on the use of the area by 

wild burros and restrictions on other rights-ofway would protect raptor foraging areas from 

degradation and disturbance.

Protecting bighorn sheep lambing areas in the 

Harquahala Mountains from habitat disturbance 

and disposal would increase forage quality and 

quantity and reproductive success in sheep 

populations.

Decisions contained in the recently finalized 

amendment to the Lower Gila North MFP 

include measures that reduce competition 

between bighorn sheep and domestic livestock 

for available resources, reduce the possibility of 

disease transmission between domestic sheep 

and bighorn sheep and allow bighorn sheep 

population transplants and augmentations to 

facilitate establishment and maintenance of 

healthy bighorn sheep populations. 

The prescribed protection from some 

construction activities in sensitive botanical 

areas in the vicinity of Arrastre Creek, Antelope 

Creek, Weaver Creek and the Harquahala 

Mountains would have little beneficial effect to 

the botanical resources given that the land health 

standards incorporated by previous plan 

amendment and wilderness designation of the 

Harquahala Mountains afford essentially the 

same level of protection provided by the 

decisions.

Supplemental plantings of cottonwood and 

willow trees around springs and along riparian 

areas would supplement natural regeneration and 

expedite achieving desired plant community 

objectives.

Evaluating spring developments for impacts to 

endemic snails would contribute to the 

conservation of the natural biologic function of 

these ecosystem components.

The decision to monitor water quality at 

identified problem areas and improve conditions 

to meet established standards would have little 

effect to the biological resources given that the 

land health standards incorporated by previous 

plan amendment affords essentially the same 

level of protection provided by the decision.

Coordination and cooperation with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department on the development 

of wildlife water catchments would benefit 

many wildlife species by making year-long 

water sources available and assist the 

Department in achieving desired population 

objectives.

Coordinating with livestock grazing allottees on 

the development of range management projects 

like fences and livestock waters would ensure 

that potential adverse impacts to wildlife habitat 

are avoided, fences do not hinder wildlife 

movement and livestock waters are safely 

accessible to wildlife populations year-long.

Livestock grazing management decisions to 

monitor browse species; construct monitoring 

exclosures and to develop an allotment 

management plan for the Harquahala Mountains,

would have little effect to the biological 

resources given that the land health standards 

incorporated by previous plan amendment afford 

essentially the same level of protection provided 

by the decisions.
Chapter 4

521

Implementation of desert tortoise management 

guidance would conserve and protect desert 

tortoises and their habitat.

The decision to develop fire management plans 

for the Bradshaw-Harquahala planning area 

would have little effect to the biological 

resources given that the Statewide Fire and Fuels 

plan amendment affords essentially the same 

prescription as the decision.

Alternative B

Most of the management prescriptions for 

biological resources apply to all action 

Alternatives; therefore, with the exception of 

allocated wildlife habitat areas and other special 

areas that influence habitat management, there is 

little difference between Alternatives. All of the 

actions discussed below are designed 

to maintain or improve the condition of priority 

wildlife populations and priority habitats.

Applying the Land Health Standards to all 

BLM-authorized activities would benefit 

biological resources by:

reducing soil erosion,

restoring and maintaining the functional 

condition of riparian habitats, 

ensuring that progress is made 

toward desired plant communities in 

both riparian and upland areas, and 

reducing the presence of invasive 

species. 

Implementing these standards would place a 

high priority on the habitat needs of special 

status species where wildlife and other land uses 

conflict.

Reintroducing, transplanting, and supplemental 

stocking of wildlife, including game, nongame, 

and endangered species, would enhance 

biological resources by (1) restoring or 

maintaining wildlife populations, distributions, 

and genetic diversity and (2) contributing to the 

conservation and recovery of listed species.

Implementing desert tortoise management 

standards and actions would conserve and 

protect tortoise populations and habitat. Habitat 

protection for tortoises would affect other 

wildlife species that use the same habitat, such 

as rosy boa, chuckwalla, Gila monster, mule 

deer, and desert bighorn sheep.

Management direction provided by Desired 

Future Condition (DFC) objectives would 

benefit biological resources. The objectives 

would protect and conserve priority habitats and 

priority species, implement approved recovery 

plans, and contribute toward the conservation 

and recovery of listed threatened or endangered 

species.

Considering the impacts of permitted activities 

on priority wildlife species and priority habitats 

in determining conformance with the 

management direction provided by the DFC 

objectives would ensure maintenance of habitat 

quantity and quality, minimize or avoid "take" 

of migratory birds, and generally conserve 

biological resources.

Management direction provided by DFC 

objectives would benefit biological resources by 

establishing habitat standards whereby habitat 

quality would be protected for many riparian and 

upland species. These objectives would be 

considered part of Standard Three of the Land 

Health Standards and be implemented using 

BLM‘s discretion.

Management actions designed to protect springs 

and seeps would affect biological resources by 

protecting from overexploitation these important 

habitat features and their value to biological 

resources and natural processes.

Management actions to maintain wildlife water 

availability would ensure that water-dependant 

wildlife would continue to have access to 

existing water sources and new water sources 

could be built where needed to maintain, restore, 

or enhance populations. These actions would 

affect the distribution and abundance of some 

wildlife during some seasons. Research is 
Chapter 4

522

ongoing to look at impacts of artificial wildlife 

waters.

Implementing standards for artificial water 

design, water quality monitoring, and water 

rights protection would benefit biological 

resources by protecting aquatic wildlife habitat 

quality and quantity as well as wildlife access to 

water.

Prohibiting domestic sheep and goat grazing 

within nine miles of occupied desert bighorn 

sheep habitat would significantly reduce the 

likelihood of disease transmission to the wild 

sheep populations.

Guidance on exotic species management would 

benefit biological resources by protecting native 

wildlife and plants by emphasizing the restoring 

and maintenance of native species.

Management actions to evaluate and mitigate 

impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat would 

benefit biological resources by giving wildlife 

habitat a priority over motorized recreation 

when conflicts are found.

Land tenure guidance would affect biological 

resources by ensuring that endangered species 

conservation or recovery values are retained on 

Federal lands.

Management actions to continue to manage 

wildlife habitat cooperatively and in partnership 

with the AGFD and other entities would benefit 

biological resources by focusing management 

emphasis and resources on high-priority issues 

and avoiding costly redundancy.

The Agua Fria National Monument 

Proclamation (Appendix A) describes wildlife 

and habitats, emphasizing their management.

This emphasis places a high priority on 

biological resources when conflicts arise 

between wildlife management and other land 

uses.

Collection of dead and down firewood for 

campfire use in the monument would remove 

small amounts of dead woody material used by 

some wildlife species. In upland areas the 

woody material selected for firewood is from 

species (mesquite and catclaw) targeted for 

reduction in plans to enhance the diversity and 

health of the native desert grasslands. Impacts 

to biological resources are expected to be 

negligible. Collection of firewood in riparian 

areas could reduce habitat for wildlife dependent 

on dead and down woody material. Though the 

impact of wood collection is expected to be low, 

provisions to temporarily or permanently close 

areas to wood collection to prevent resource 

damage should avoid any adverse effects to 

wildlife habitat.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area,

impacts to biological resources from firewood 

and vegetation collection would be essentially 

the same as those described for the national 

monument, except that noncommercial 

collection of some wood and cacti skeletons is 

allowed. Restricting commercial collection 

would protect stands of ironwood and mesquite 

that provide valuable habitat for many birds and 

other wildlife. In addition to closing, limiting, 

or mitigating motorized vehicle routes in the 

Harquahala Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area

(64,220 acres), prohibiting the building of 

rangeland improvements in Browns Canyon and 

the Inner Basin would benefit biological 

resources by reducing impacts to Sonoran 

desertscrub, chaparral vegetation, and priority 

wildlife habitat, including habitat for mule deer, 

bighorn sheep, and desert tortoise.

The designation of the Harquahala Mountain 

WHA would add additional protection to 60,420 

acres of Category I desert tortoise habitat, 1,710 

acres of Category II habitat and 2,050 acres of 

Category III habitat as well as 0.4 miles of 

riparian habitat in Browns Canyon by 

emphasizing wildlife habitat management in this 

area. See Table 4-5 for comparisons of tortoise 

and riparian habitats protected in ACECs and 

WHAs by alternative. 
Chapter 4

523

Alternative C

Impacts to biological resources would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B, except as 

described below.

The allocation in Agua Fria National Monument 

of the Pronghorn Fawning Habitat WHA 

(16,810 acres) and the Pronghorn Movement 

Corridor WHA (22,520 acres) would do the 

following:

limit or mitigate vehicular access to 

achieve DFCs, 

prohibit developing new recreational 

facilities, 

require in all fences meet BLM 

standards, and 

emphasize management of wildlife 

habitat, thereby reducing pronghorn 

habitat fragmentation and movement 

restrictions

In these managed areas, prescribed burns would 

improve pronghorn forage quality and reduce 

the abundance and spread of invasive species.

Allocating the Belmont/Big Horn Mountains 

WHA (140,790 acres) and Date Creek 

Mountains WHA (2,850 acres) would require 

the closure, limitation, or mitigation of 

motorized vehicle routes to reduce impacts to 

wildlife populations and habitat fragmentation.

In the Belmont/Big Horn Mountains, this 

allocation would also protect bighorn sheep and 

desert tortoise populations from habitat 

fragmentation and allow unrestricted movement 

and greater use of this habitat, maintaining 

genetic diversity and population health of 

bighorn sheep. Other management actions for 

these areas include (1) acquiring State and 

private lands and (2) prohibiting the building of 

new fences. These actions would protect and 

maintain Sonoran desertscrub vegetation 

communities by restricting land disturbance.

Allocating the Upper Agua Fria River Basin 

Habitat Corridor WHA (9,907 acres) would 

benefit biological resources (1) by eliminating 

conflicts with vehicle routes that degrade 

wildlife habitat value and (2) by allowing 

pronghorn and mule deer to move between 

BLM-managed lands and national forest lands 

by eliminating the building of new fences.

The designation of the WHAs would add 

additional protection to 6,520 acres of Category 

I desert tortoise habitat, 129,590 acres of 

Category II habitat and 7,840 acres of Category 

III habitat as well as 14.7 miles of riparian 

habitat by emphasizing wildlife habitat 

management in these areas. See Table 4-5 for 

comparisons of tortoise and riparian habitats 

protected in ACECs and WHAs by alternative.

Alternative D

Impacts to biological resources would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B, except as 

described below.

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts of 

allocating the Pronghorn Movement Corridor 

and the Pronghorn Fawning Habitat WHAs 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C, except that all fences would be 

removed in the absence of livestock grazing and 

substantial obstacles to movement would be 

eliminated.

Impacts of allocating Date Creek Mountains 

WHA would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C, except that all existing fences 

would be removed and mineral material and 

vegetation sales would be prohibited. These 

management actions would allow big game to 

move throughout the areas and would eliminate 

potential tortoise habitat destruction from 

mineral material sales.

Impacts of allocating the Upper Agua Fria River 

Basin Habitat Corridor WHA (21,443 acres) 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C, except that the management 

would be applied to a larger area and all fences 

would be removed, facilitating big game 

movement.

The designation of the WHAs would add 

additional protection to 2,850 acres of Category 
Chapter 4

524

II habitat and 3,630 acres of Category III habitat 

as well as five miles of riparian habitat by 

emphasizing wildlife habitat management in 

these areas. See Table 4-5 for comparisons of 

tortoise and riparian habitats protected in 

ACECs and WHAs by alternative.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to biological resources would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B except as 

described below.

Impacts of allocating the Pronghorn Movement 

Corridor WHA and the Pronghorn Fawning 

Habitat WHA would be similar to those 

described for Alternative C. Alternative E

would prevent impacts to pronghorn during the 

fawning season from human activity resulting 

from special recreation use permits.

Within the Agua Fria National Monument, 

impacts of allocating the Belmont/Big Horn 

Mountains WHA would be similar to those 

described for Alternative C for allocating 

Belmont/Big Horn Mountains WHA and the 

Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn Wildlife Corridor 

WHA.

The designation of the WHAs would add 

additional protection to 3,610 acres of Category

I desert tortoise habitat, 129,340 acres of 

Category II habitat and 4,040 acres of Category 

III habitat as well as 14.7 miles of riparian 

habitat by emphasizing wildlife habitat 

management in these areas. See Table 4-5 for 

comparisons of tortoise and riparian habitats 

protected in ACECs and WHAs by alternative. 

In the national monument, eight tributaries of 

the Agua Fria River are determined as eligible 

for analysis as potential additions to the national 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. BLM policy 

requires protection of the outstandingly 

remarkable wildlife habitat values along these 

stream segments. 

4.11.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Cultural resource management activities that 

protect sensitive sites can also protect biological 

resources that occur in the same area. Activities 

that encourage greatly increased visitor use or 

prescribe facility development can result in 

species or habitat disturbance that could degrade 

habitat conditions for some species.

Alternative A (No Action)

Management actions for cultural resources that 

prohibit surface disturbance near known 

archaeological sites would protect vegetation 

and wildlife habitat in those areas.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument, biological 

resources could be degraded by 

implementing high public use at five sites. If 

these site developments include visitor facilities 

with gravel parking areas, restrooms, and picnic 

facilities; vegetation loss and increased human 

activity could alter wildlife use of the area and 

lead to habitat loss and fragmentation. Any 

potential impacts to pronghorn or other 

biological resources in the national monument 

would be tempered by the requirement that 

management actions be consistent with the 

National Monument Proclamation (Appendix 

A). A portion of Black Mesa, along with the 

Badger Springs Wash area, is located in a 

pronghorn migration corridor. Public use of the 

sites could disturb the movements of the 

pronghorn. Impacts of developing four cultural 

sites to moderate public use, including such 

improvements as hardened trails and signs, 

would be lower than developing them to High 

Public Use. No impacts are expected from Low 

Public Use developments.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

there could be site-specific conflicts with 

biological resources, at locations developed for 

public use in eight or fewer SCRMA‘S. The 

resources affected, and the nature and extent of 
Chapter 4

525

impacts, would depend on the site location, size, 

and surrounding habitat. Impacts would be 

reduced by the decision to manage desert 

tortoise habitat for no net loss in amount or 

quality.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument biological 

resources could be degraded by 

implementing high public use at one sites,

Potential impacts would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B but limited to one 

area. Impacts from developing the 

eight Moderate Public Use sites described would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B

but at more sites. Overall, development of 

public use sites is expected to have lower 

impacts than in Alternative B.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area,

impacts would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but in fewer locations.

Alternative D

No sites would be allocated to High Public Use, 

and impacts from developing one Moderate 

Public Use site would be limited to that single 

area. There would be no conflicts with 

pronghorn migration corridors. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area,

impacts would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but in fewer locations than in 

Alternative C.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument biological 

resources could be affected by implementing 

high public use at two sites and, to a lesser 

extent, moderate public use at up to six sites. 

The construction of visitor facilities, such as 

parking lots, trails or ramadas, could disturb 

small areas of habitat. Higher numbers of 

visitors could alter wildlife use of an area, 

contributing to habitat loss or fragmentation. 

Project planning will address the mitigation of 

potential adverse effects of site-specific 

interpretive uses on biological resources. No 

sites will be developed for interpretive use in 

low public use areas, excluding at least 85% of 

the monument from impacts associated with 

higher visitation and development at public use 

sites. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

impacts would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but the impacts would be more 

limited in potential locations because two 

SCRMA‘s would be excluded from public use 

allocations. 

4.11.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Paleontological resource management activities 

that protect sensitive sites can also protect 

biological resources that occur in the same area. 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts to biological 

resources expected under any Alternative.

4.11.7 From Recreation 

Management

Recreation management activities can impact 

biological resources in various ways depending 

on the type of allocation or management action 

and location. Most types of recreational 

activities cause some level of disturbance to 

wildlife populations or vegetative communities. 

The development of recreational facilities like 

parking or staging areas, trailheads and hiking 

trails can destroy or degrade habitat within the 

footprint of the facility and also degrade the 

habitat quality of the surrounding area by 

encouraging human disturbance of wildlife 

populations and plant communities. 

Management prescriptions that limit or restrict 

various types of activities can reduce adverse 

impacts to populations and habitat. Facility 

development can direct human activities to 
Chapter 4

526

previously disturbed areas or areas less sensitive 

or less susceptible to degradation from 

recreational activities.

Alternative A (No Action)

In the Agua Fria National Monument recreation 

uses would be allowed to the extent that they are 

consistent with the primary purpose of the 

monument to protect the objects identified in the 

proclamation. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area,

current levels of recreation management would 

inadequately protect biological resources.

Informal concentrated recreational use areas 

would continue to develop and grow causing 

increasing levels of habitat loss and disturbance.

The location and use of these areas would 

continue to be unplanned and may conflict with 

sensitive biological resources, priority species or 

priority habitats, including riparian areas and 

desert tortoise habitat.

In both planning areas, cross-country travel by 

both motorized and non-motorized users could 

lead to the creation of permanent trails, 

sometimes called ―social‖ or ―user‖ trails that 

braid across the landscape. Plants are trampled, 

damaged or destroyed during the creation of 

these routes. These user-created and nonengineered trails are subject to hardening or 

erosion and may cross and impact fragile plant 

habitats. Cryptogammic (black crusty soil) soils 

in some desert locales and desert pavement areas 

in others are easily damaged. Erosion can lead to 

loss of plant life. 

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument the allocation 

of 57,900 acres of Front Country and 300 acres 

of Passage RMZs would emphasize public 

recreation use. This use could encourage ground 

disturbance in and near recreation use areas and 

access roads, degrading vegetation and wildlife 

habitat. Additionally, both campgrounds 

proposed by Alternative B would be in 

pronghorn movement corridors. Human activity 

in these campgrounds could affect pronghorn 

behavior, reducing the value of fawning areas on 

Black Mesa and modifying pronghorn 

movement in the Bloody Basin Road area.

Allocating 12,700 acres of Back Country RMZ 

would emphasize natural primitive landscapes, 

resulting in limited access and less ground 

disturbance to vegetation and wildlife habitat.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

seasonally restricting motorized speed or timed 

events in Category I and II desert tortoise habitat 

would avoid impacts to desert tortoises from 

these types of activities.

Limiting designation of rock crawling areas to 

areas where biological values do not exist or 

could be mitigated would protect biological 

resources.

In the Table Mesa SRMA 20 acres allotted for 

OHV staging areas would destroy any remaining 

vegetation in these areas. In the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains SRMA, 30 acres allotted for OHV 

staging areas would destroy any remaining 

vegetation in these areas. In the Wickenburg 

SRMA, allotting 20 acres for OHV staging areas 

would destroy any remaining vegetation in these 

areas. In the San Domingo SRMA, allotting 10 

acres for OHV staging areas would destroy any 

remaining vegetation in these areas.

Impacts on vegetation from cross-country travel 

by motorized and non-motorized users could 

cause impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Decisions contained in the recently finalized 

amendment to the Lower Gila North MFP 

provide protection for desert tortoise by 

restricting where Long-term Visitor Areas could 

be located and require resource protection as a 

concurrent objective of developing some types 

of recreational facilities.

Management of the Vulture Mountains as a 

Special Recreation Management Area 

emphasizing motorized and non-motorized 

recreational activities would likely degrade the 

wildlife habitat values in the area including that 
Chapter 4

527

for desert tortoise and nesting raptors by 

increasing visitor use and human disturbance to 

the area.

Alternative C

Impacts to biological resources in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to those 

under Alternative B except that visitor use 

impacts on the Front Country RMZ could affect 

42,000 acres. The developed campground in the 

Badger Springs area would be in a narrow 

portion of the pronghorn movement corridor, 

where human activity could affect pronghorn 

behavior, reducing the value of fawning areas on 

Black Mesa.

Impacts to biological resources in the Back 

Country RMZ would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B, except that the Back 

Country RMZ would be expanded to 28,200 

acres.

Impacts to biological resources from allocating a 

Passage RMZ would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B, except that the 

Passage RMZ would occupy just 700 acres.

Within the Bradshaw-Harquahala, impacts from 

staging areas and route designations would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B, 

except the size of the disturbance and vegetation 

loss would be less.

Impacts on vegetation from cross-country travel 

by motorized and non-motorized users could 

cause impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative D

Impacts to biological resources in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to those 

under Alternative B, except that visitor use 

impacts of the Front Country RMZ would affect 

1,530 acres. The national monument would 

have no developed campgrounds, decreasing 

possible impacts to pronghorn behavior in the 

pronghorn movement corridor.

Impacts to biological resources in the Back 

Country RMZ would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B except that the Back 

Country RMZ would be expanded to 68,380 

acres.

Impacts to biological resources from allocating a 

Passage RMZ would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B, except that the 

Passage RMZ would consist of 990 acres.

Within the Bradshaw-Harquahala, impacts from 

staging areas and route designations would be 

similar to those described for Alternative C, 

except that the size of the disturbance and 

vegetation loss would be greater, especially in 

Castle Hot Springs SRMA.

Shifting uses in the Hieroglyphic Mountains 

SRMA from motorized to non-motorized over 

the life of the plan would reduce habitat 

fragmentation and disturbance and the 

displacing of wildlife. 

Impacts on vegetation from cross-country travel 

by motorized and non-motorized users could 

cause impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A, but would be less pronounced 

under this alternative due to vehicle use and 

entry prescriptions. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative) 

Impacts to biological resources in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to those 

under Alternative B, except that visitor use 

impacts of the Front Country RMZ would affect 

11,900 acres. As in Alternative D, the national 

monument would have no developed 

campgrounds.

Impacts to biological resources in the Back 

Country RMZ would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B except that the Back 

Country RMZ would be 57,650 acres. Impacts 

to biological resources from allocating a 

Passage RMZ under Alternative E would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B

except that the Passage RMZ would consist 

of 1,350 acres.
Chapter 4

528

Within the Bradshaw-Harquahala, impacts from 

staging areas and route designations would be 

similar to those described for Alternative A.

Impacts on vegetation from cross-country travel 

by motorized and non-motorized users could 

cause impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

4.11.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

The designation and management to maintain 

VRM objectives can limit or restrict some types 

of activities in some locations. Limiting or 

precluding the development of facilities that 

would otherwise destroy or degrade wildlife 

habitat can benefit wildlife populations. Class I 

and II designations may limit or preclude active 

wildlife management, like the development of 

artificial water sources, if mitigation is not 

possible, which can benefit some wildlife 

populations.

Alternative A (No Action)

In the Lower Gila North MFP (BLM 1983) area, 

impacts to biological resources from designating 

areas as VRM Class I would influence the 

design and location of wildlife management 

developments, including water facilities, by 

requiring that the level of change from the 

characteristic landscape be very low and not 

attract attention from key observation points. 

Some types of habitat developments may be 

precluded at some locations depending on 

design and site characteristics. This allocation 

may also limit or preclude some types of 

developments that could destroy habitat or 

adversely affect wildlife populations. VRM 

Class I for the entire planning area is allocated 

only within designated wilderness areas and 

equals 96,820 acres. The Phoenix RMP (BLM 

1988a) area has no VRM classification except 

where designated wilderness is VRM Class I.

In the absence of VRM allocations, 

implementation actions use VRM Class III 

standards. VRM Class III would allow wildlife 

related developments to attract the attention but 

not dominate the view of the casual observer.

Though efforts would be made to minimize the 

visual impacts of wildlife related developments, 

few limitations would be likely imposed on 

placement or design.

Alternative B

Impacts to biological resources would be similar 

to those under Alternative A, except that the area 

in VRM Class I would be 96,820 acres 

and VRM Class II would be allocated to 486,800

acres.

Similar to the VRM Class I description in 

Alternative A, VRM Class II would influence the 

design and location of wildlife management 

developments, except that they should not attract 

the attention of the casual observer from key 

observation points.

Alternative C

Impacts to biological resources would be similar 

to those under Alternative B, except that the area 

in VRM Class I would increase to 109,570 acres 

and the area in VRM Class II would increase 

to 507,610 acres.

Alternative D

Impacts to biological resources would be similar 

to those under Alternative B, except that the area 

in VRM Class I would decrease to 298,310 acres 

and the area in VRM Class II would decrease to 

340,880 acres.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A, except that the area in VRM Class 

I would increase to 96,820 acres and the area in 

VRM Class II would increase to 488,250 acres.
Chapter 4

529

4.11.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Livestock grazing can degrade vegetative 

communities in both upland and riparian areas 

by selectively grazing or browsing more 

palatable plants. Livestock can degrade water 

quality in springs and streams through 

trampling, defacation and facilitating silt runoff 

from overgrazed watersheds. Grazing can 

degrade wildlife and fish habitat by removing 

forage and cover, and altering stream 

morphology. Grazing can also facilitate the 

introduction and establishment of exotic plants 

by creating disturbed areas and depositing seeds 

from other locations. Livestock management 

facilities can limit wildlife movement (fences), 

alter natural behavior through the establishment 

of numerous temporary water sources that 

wildlife become dependent upon and degrade 

habitat by creating livestock concentration areas.

Rangeland management can reduce or mitigate 

the above potential adverse effects to biological 

resources by setting ecological standards or 

objectives and Desired Future Conditions that 

address the needs of the plant communities and 

wildlife populations then prescribing and

enforcing management actions to achieve them. 

Active rangeland management can regulate the 

authorized use to avoid the degradation of 

biological resources. Livestock facilities can be 

designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects to 

habitat and animal behavior.

Permanent livestock waters can provide an 

important habitat component for many species in 

areas where roads have fragmented habitat and 

eliminated access to historic water sources.

Alternative A (No Action)

Adhering to the Rangeland Health Standards

would benefit biological resources by doing the 

following: 

reducing soil erosion, 

restoring and maintaining the functional 

condition of riparian habitats, and 

ensuring that progress is made toward 

desired plant communities in both 

riparian and upland areas, including 

reducing the presence of invasive 

species. 

Implementing these standards would prioritize 

the habitat needs of special status species, where 

wildlife and other land uses conflict.

Implementing changes in grazing practices and 

management systems as a result of the 

Rangeland Health Standards would also 

increase vegetation density and cover, which 

provide forage and cover for wildlife. 

Prohibiting livestock grazing in Larry Canyon 

ACEC in Agua Fria National Monument would 

have little effect on biological resources because 

the sensitive riparian habitat in the ACEC is 

inaccessible to cattle.

Modifying all fences to facilitate big game 

movement would benefit biological resources by 

allowing unimpeded movement of pronghorn 

and other game between seasonal use areas.

Developing new range water sources might 

benefit biological resources by making usable 

some habitat that would not otherwise be 

suitable because of a lack of water. Some 

wildlife might expand or increase as a result of 

the increased water availability. However, the 

presence of range waters might alter the 

behavior of some wildlife species, populations, 

or individuals. Wildlife might become 

dependent on these water sources and be 

adversely affected if the water source is not 

maintained. While designed to be wildlife 

friendly, range water sources can result in 

mortality to some small mammals and birds, 

which can become trapped in troughs and 

storage tanks not designed or maintained to 

BLM‘s standards.

Range waters might also be a potential source of 

disease transmission to some game species.

These waters tend to concentrate livestock use 

and result in over-utilization of vegetation and 

soil alterations in the area of influence, generally 

within a half mile of the water source.
Chapter 4

530

Habitat alteration resulting from concentrated 

use can reduce forage availability for some 

wildlife, including desert tortoise and mule 

deer.

Alternative B

Impacts from adhering to the Rangeland Health 

Standards would be the same as in Alternative 

A.

Implementing ephemeral allotment designations 

when warranted would eliminate year-long 

livestock use of perennial shrubs and trees in 

Sonoran desertscrub vegetation communities, 

where precipitation and vegetation production 

are low. The absence of perennial use would 

likely increase native grass production, shrub 

and tree cover, and habitat complexity essential 

for many small mammals and birds.

Allowing the consideration of allotment 

retirement when lands are devoted to other 

public purposes could increase plant species 

diversity and wildlife habitat complexity in areas 

of implementation.

In Agua Fria National Monument limiting 

livestock grazing in riparian areas to winter only 

(November 1 to March 1), implemented through 

the allotment evaluation process, would do the 

following:

ensure recruitment and survival of 

cottonwood, willow, ash, and sycamore 

trees; 

reduce livestock loafing along creek 

bottoms, which degrades streambanks 

and alters channel morphology, thereby 

increasing the channel width-depth ratio 

and creating a deeper channel with more 

pools; 

allow the accumulation of vegetation in 

the herbaceous layer that protects the 

natural function of streams. 

These effects would increase the diversity and 

abundance of plant species and the complexity 

of the wildlife habitat, benefiting a number of 

wildlife species, including endangered fishes 

and migratory birds.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

implementing riparian management through the 

allotment evaluation process would have effects 

on biological resources similar to those 

described for Agua Fria National Monument, 

except that impacts would occur more slowly 

and management techniques could vary.

In both planning areas, impacts from water 

developments and fences would be the same as 

those described in Alternative A.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to 

biological resources from closing all riparian 

pastures to livestock grazing would be similar to 

those described for Alternative B for the winter 

season of use, except that the vegetation and 

stream channel response would likely be more 

pronounced and occur more quickly due to the 

lack of vegetation utilization and trampling.

Upland areas in riparian pastures would likely 

respond to the absence of livestock grazing by 

increasing vegetation ground cover and litter.

Wildlife forage would increase because 

livestock would remove no annual production.

Individual plants would not be hedged. Most 

plants would produce more seeds and 

accumulate decadent material and litter in the 

absence of livestock utilization. This 

accumulation of vegetation material would 

increase wildlife habitat diversity and 

abundance, which in turn would result in 

increases in populations of wildlife depending 

upon vegetation cover.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts to biological resources would be similar 

to those described for Agua Fria National 

Monument.

Closing the Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC 

to livestock grazing during bighorn sheep 

lambing season (January 1 – April 1) would 

increase wildlife forage quality and availability

and eliminate competition between bighorn 
Chapter 4

531

sheep and livestock for forage during the critical 

lambing season. These benefits should increase 

lamb fitness and survival.

Prohibiting the developing of facilities that 

would increase livestock use in Browns Canyon 

and the Inner Basin would eliminate 

concentrated livestock use from sensitive 

riparian and upland habitat areas.

Impacts from water developments and fences 

would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A.

Alternative D

The affects of removing all livestock from 

Federal lands in both planning areas would be 

similar to those described for riparian and 

upland areas under Alternative C. However, 

Alternative D would affect a much larger area.

Eliminating all range improvements that serve 

no purpose in the absence of livestock grazing 

would remove many fences and corrals that 

hinder natural movement of pronghorn, mule 

deer, and bighorn sheep.

Impacts from water developments would be 

greatly reduced due to the limitations and 

restrictions on grazing. Facilities that are not 

needed for other management purposes or are 

creating negative impacts would be removed. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Alternative E would have impacts similar to 

those described for Alternative B.

4.11.10 From Minerals 

Management

Minerals exploration and extraction can destroy 

or degrade wildlife habitat by removing 

vegetation and altering the landscape. Minerals 

extraction activities include the development and 

use of haul roads that can fragment habitat. 

Minerals extraction activities can destroy habitat 

for sensitive species like the desert tortoise, 

chuckwalla and rosy boa by removing rocks that 

provide burrows and coversites. Mining 

activities within streams and washes can degrade 

or destroy habitat on site and also downstream 

by altering the hydrology of the area. Mining 

activities can leave behind disturbed areas that 

facilitate the establishment of exotic plant 

species and pits that can entrap some wildlife 

species.

Active minerals management can ensure that 

biological resource concerns are addressed 

during the development of mining plans of 

operation. Discretionary activities and facilities 

can be modified to the extent allowable by law 

in order to protect sensitive biological resource.

Abandoned mine shafts and adits are an 

important source of roost sites for many bat 

species and can be used by various other wildlife 

species including javelina, barn owls and various 

reptiles.

Alternative A (No Action)

Agua Fria National Monument is closed to new 

mineral entry. This closure removes the threat 

of vegetation clearing, habitat loss, and exotic 

plant introduction that could occur as a result of 

mining.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

minerals actions would be evaluated on a caseby-case basis and impacts to biological 

resources would be mitigated and avoided to the 

extent allowable by regulation. Some residual 

loss of desert tortoise habitat is likely as a result 

of mining conducted under the 3809 

regulations. This unmitigated loss is expected to 

be relatively small.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to 

biological resources would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A.

Closing Tule Creek ACEC to mineral entry, 

mineral leasing, geothermal leasing, and mineral 

material disposal would reduce ground 
Chapter 4

532

disturbances and impacts to vegetation and 

wildlife habitat, including habitat for the 

endangered Gila topminnow and desert tortoise.

Closing the Hassayampa ―Box‖ area to mineral 

entry would reduce ground disturbance and 

impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat, 

including priority riparian habitat.

Opening reconveyed lands to mineral entry 

could result in mining and mineral material sales 

in areas now closed. Mining could disturb 

priority habitats, including riparian areas and 

desert tortoise habitat, and could degrade the 

value of these habitats to wildlife.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to 

biological resources from minerals management 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A.

Impacts to biological resources in Tule Creek 

ACEC from minerals management would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B.

Closing Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC to mineral 

entry would reduce the potential for ground 

disturbance and mining-related impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife habitat, including desert 

tortoise habitat.

Closing the Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC 

to mineral entry would reduce the potential for 

ground disturbance and mining-related impacts 

to vegetation, spring sources, and wildlife 

habitat, including desert tortoise and bighorn 

sheep habitat.

Opening reconveyed lands with high mineral 

potential to mineral entry could result in mining 

and mineral material sales in areas now closed to 

those activities. Mining could disturb priority 

habitat, including that of desert tortoises.

Priority riparian habitat on reconveyed lands 

would be protected from mining disturbances.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to 

biological resources from minerals management 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A.

Keeping reconveyed lands closed to mineral 

entry would protect from mining disturbances 

priority wildlife habitats, including riparian 

areas and desert tortoise habitat.

Impacts to biological resources in Tule Creek 

ACEC from minerals management would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B.

Impacts to biological resources from closing the 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC, Baldy 

Mountain ONA ACEC, and Sheep Mountain 

RNA ACEC to mineral entry would be similar 

to those described for Alternative C.

Impacts to biological resources from closing the 

Belmont-Big Horn ACEC to mineral material 

disposal and leasing would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B for the lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to 

biological resources from minerals management 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A.

Impacts to biological resources in Tule Creek 

ACEC from minerals management would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B.

Impacts to biological resources from 

management of reconveyed lands would be 

similar to those described for Alternative C.

In other areas, impacts would be similar to 

Alternative A.
Chapter 4

533

4.11.11 From Fire 

Management

Fire management can suppress wildfires that 

destroy habitat in non-fire adapted vegetative 

communities like Sonoran Desertscrub and 

suppress catastrophic wildfires that can destroy 

habitat in fire adapted communities like 

chaparral. By managing wildfires and choosing 

the appropriate management response, 

suppression actions take into consideration both 

negative and positive resource impacts due to 

fire.

The use of prescribed fire in fire adapted 

vegetative communities can restore natural 

vegetative communities and natural fire return 

intervals to which the wildlife and plant 

communities are adapted to historically. 

Prescribed fires can be designed to avoid 

adverse impacts associated with catastrophic 

wildfires and optimize the beneficial effects to 

the vegetation by controlling fire intensity and 

timing.

Alternative A (No Action)

The use of prescribed fire in Agua Fria National 

Monument would particularly affect pronghorn 

habitats by doing the following:

removing old, woody vegetation,

promoting the growth of healthy new 

plants for forage, 

eliminating shrubs that allow predators 

to ambush pronghorn, 

increasing the quality of fawn hiding 

cover, and 

helping control or potentially eliminate 

invasive species and restore the natural 

fire cycle. 

Full wildland fire suppression of naturally set 

fires in the national monument could interrupt 

the natural fire cycle required for proper 

successional development of plant 

communities. Suppression of natural fires can 

promote the growth of invasive or exotic species 

and allow a buildup of the existing fuel load.

Full suppression of all fires in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would have the same 

impacts to fire-adapted communities (grassland 

and chaparral) as those shown above.

Full suppression of fires in Sonoran desertscrub 

habitat in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would affect vegetation and wildlife by 

decreasing mortality to species not adapted to 

fire.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (No Action)

Vegetation and wildlife (particularly pronghorn 

antelope) would benefit from prescribed burning 

and mechanical treatment of the vegetation in 

the planning areas. Impacts would include a 

temporary reduction in the availability of 

forage. Over the long term these treatments 

would do the following:

eliminate invasive species, 

reduce the fuel load, and 

improve and maintain the species 

diversity of perennial grasses and forbs.

The treatments would also reduce the population 

size of invasive species in fire-adapted 

environments throughout the planning areas, 

reducing competition between invasive species 

and native vegetation for available space, 

nutrients, and water.

Allowing natural fire starts to burn when 

conditions are suitable would allow the natural 

fire cycle to occur in fire-adapted grassland and 

chaparral plant communities. These fires would 

create a natural mosaic of vegetation of different 

successional stages as well as improve forage 

and reduce hazardous fuels.

Full suppression of fires in Sonoran desertscrub 

habitat in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would have the same impacts as described 

in Alternative A.
Chapter 4

534

4.11.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Maintaining and managing burro populations 

can have adverse impacts to vegetation and 

wildlife habitat. Burro use can remove forage 

and cover for some wildlife species and degrade 

habitat quality, especially along riparian areas, 

through utilization of vegetation and bank 

trampling. Burros can compete with game 

species for available forage and water.

Active management of burro herds can ensure 

burro numbers are maintained at levels that do 

not degrade habitat nor adversely impact plant 

communities.

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts are expected in Agua Fria National 

Monument.

In the Harquahala Herd Area (HA), concentrated 

burro use of sensitive habitats, especially in 

Browns Canyon in the Harquahala Mountains, 

would continue to cause degradation of those 

habitats and increase competition between 

wildlife species and burros for limited forage 

and water resources.

Maintaining the burro herd within the 80,800-

acre Lake Pleasant Herd Management Area 

(HMA) at the Appropriate Management Level 

(AML) determined in the Lake Pleasant Herd 

Management Plan would minimize competition 

between burros, wildlife, and livestock.

Alternative B

Impacts are the same as in Alternative A.

Alternatives C and D

By eliminating the burro population in the 

Harquahala HA, sensitive habitats where burros 

now concentrate would begin to recover and 

burros would not compete with mule deer and 

bighorn sheep for forage, water, or other habitat.

Impacts in the Lake Pleasant HMA are the same 

as in Alternative A.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Removing nuisance burros and burros impairing 

sensitive habitats would result in impacts similar 

to those described for Alternatives C and D.

The effects of eliminating the burro population 

in the Harquahala HA would be the same as 

Alternatives C and D.

Impacts in the Lake Pleasant HMA are the same 

as in Alternative A.

4.11.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Roads and vehicle ways can degrade habitat 

quality for many wildlife species, destroy habitat 

when roads are created, cause habitat 

fragmentation, disrupt natural animal behavior, 

result in direct mortality to individual animals, 

alter natural flow of streams and washes, pollute 

downstream water sources, encourage the spread 

of invasive plant species and increase human 

disturbance to wildlife populations.

The mere presence of a road has little or no 

impact to wildlife populations. It is the 

frequency of road use and the associated human 

and vehicle presence that impacts wildlife 

populations.

In general, more improved roads receive more 

use and the wider the road, the more improved 

the road, the more disruptive the road is to 

wildlife populations. Road densities can also 

affect wildlife populations and habitat quality. 

Generally, the higher the road density, the more 

impact there is to wildlife but the frequency of 

road use has more influence than road density. 

For example, an area with 4 miles of roads 

which are infrequently used may have minimal 

impact to wildlife populations while the same 

size area with 2 miles of roads that receive

heavy use may cause wildlife populations to 
Chapter 4

535

avoid the roads and habitat fragmentation may 

occur.

Managing transportation and access by closing 

roads that are unneeded, prohibiting off-road 

travel and controlling traffic volume by 

regulating the width or level of improvement can 

reduce the adverse impacts of roads to wildlife 

populations, vegetation and wildlife habitat.

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument, biological 

resources would benefit from prohibiting crosscountry OHV use, which would prevent the 

destruction of vegetation and priority wildlife 

habitats and habitats for priority species.

Decisions contained in the recently finalized 

amendment to the Lower Gila North MFP 

eliminate cross country travel, limit vehicle use 

to existing and/or designated roads and vehicle 

routes, prohibit creation of unauthorized routes 

and allow for vehicle use of designated routes 

only when needed for resource protection. 

These measures would provide some protection 

to priority species and priority habitats but is 

reactive and management measures would lag 

behind resource degradation.

Prohibiting cross-country OHV use in the 

management area covered by the Phoenix 

Resource Management Plan (BLM 1988a) 

would provide some protection for sensitive 

desert tortoise habitat but plan language makes 

enforcement difficult due to the lack of route 

designation or signing. Vehicle use of routes 

that degrade the value of sensitive riparian and 

tortoise habitat would likely continue and 

increase.

Route proliferation would likely continue as a 

result of not designating open routes. Habitat 

loss and fragmentation would likely continue to 

increase with time. Human disturbance to 

wildlife populations in more remote areas would 

likely increase as more vehicle routes are 

established in these areas.

Alternative B

Designating 134 miles of road as open and 

closing 37 miles in the Agua Fria National 

Monument would reduce the likelihood of 

habitat fragmentation and human disturbance to 

priority habitat and priority species, including 

riparian and pronghorn habitats. Closed roads 

would reclaim and restore habitat.

Most of the roads on the Agua Fria National 

Monument receive infrequent use and do not 

appear to constitute barriers to wildlife 

movement.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

designating vehicle routes and closing 

undesignated routes and cross-country travel 

would benefit biological resources by reducing 

human disturbance associated with vehicle 

activity, reduce the potential for habitat 

fragmentation and allow closed routes to reclaim 

and provide habitat values.

Alternative C

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B

except that only 123 miles of roads would 

remain open, and 48 miles would be closed 

reducing potential adverse impacts to wildlife.

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those described in 

Alternative B.

Alternative D

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B, 

except that only 48 miles of roads would remain 

open, and 123 miles of roads would be closed 

potential adverse impacts to wildlife would be 

much reduced.

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those described in 

Alternative B.
Chapter 4

536

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B 

except that only 94 miles of roads would be 

open. 

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be less than Alternative C but more 

than Alternative D.

4.11.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

The allocation and management of areas to 

maintain wilderness characteristics can reduce 

adverse impacts associated with roads, vehicles 

and other human activities to biological 

resources by restricting access and the types of 

activities permitted.

These types of allocations may also add 

restrictions to some types of management 

activities which require mechanized access but 

are beneficial to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Construction of some types of wildlife water 

facilities in some locations may be incompatible 

with wilderness characteristics objectives or 

associated VRM objectives and require 

modification or mitigation.

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would recognize wildlife 

populations and habitat as important aspects of 

naturalness and actively manage them. Such 

management would minimize impacts to 

wildlife.

Alternative A (No Action)

There would be no impacts to biological 

resources because there are no areas managed 

for wilderness characteristics in this Alternative. 

Alternative B

Allocating 56,040 acres to maintain wilderness 

characteristics in the Harquahala Management 

Unit, along with restrictions to roads and 

vehicles, would reduce disturbances to priority 

wildlife habitats.

Closing lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to mineral material disposal 

would reduce ground disturbance and impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife habitat.

No allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics were made in the Agua Fria 

National Monument under this alternative.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except that allocating 107,843 acres to maintain 

wilderness characteristics in 3 management 

units, along with restrictions to roads and 

vehicles and minerals would further reduce 

disturbances to priority wildlife habitats.

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C, in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning except 140,235 

acres would be allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. These areas would be less 

subject to impacts associated with mineral 

disposal activities

Allocating areas to maintain wilderness 

characteristics in the Agua Fria National 

Monument and associated restrictions to roads 

and vehicles would have little affect on 

biological resources as vehicle and road 

restrictions are required to protect the monument

resources and included in all alternatives.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, I

impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except 89,870 acres would be allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics and these 

areas would not be closed to mineral material 
Chapter 4

537

disposal making them subject to impacts 

associated with this activity.

In the Agua Fria National Monument, impacts 

would be similar to Alternative B.

4.12 Impacts on 

Cultural Resources

The impact analysis addresses the following 

management priorities and uses for cultural 

resources:

resource protection 

scientific research, and 

public education and interpretation. 

Protecting significant cultural resources is an 

overarching goal of all of the Alternatives, as

well as a directive that is accorded special 

emphasis in Agua Fria National Monument. In 

addition, because the significance of an 

archaeological or historical site may be closely 

related to its scientific research potential, the 

consequences of implementing the Alternatives 

on current and future research opportunities 

need to be determined. Finally, even though no 

stipulations were made in the Agua Fria 

National Monument Proclamation (Appendix A) 

for public use, some degree of onsite public 

education and interpretation is considered 

desirable, though not to the detriment of the 

cultural resources that Agua Fria National 

Monument was created to protect. In the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, demand is 

also increasing for opportunities for cultural 

heritage tourism.

The Alternatives discussed in Chapter 2 differ 

mainly in the proposed number of sites and 

SCRMA‘s that would be allocated to public use. 

Generally, the greater the public use is expected 

to be, the greater the potential for cultural 

resource damage. However, increased use also 

provides greater opportunities for public 

education and promotion of responsible 

stewardship.

4.12.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Cultural resource inventories, such as those 

described in Section 3.6, would continue 

throughout the planning areas in each 

Alternative. These studies are nonintrusive and 

have no noticeable affect on the locations in 

which they are conducted. 

Cultural resources represent one of the 

outstanding values for which the Agua Fria 

River was recommended as suitable for wild and 

scenic river designation. BLM guidance 

mandates the protection of these values. Actions 

implemented to protect wildlife habitat and 

scenic values, which are also regarded as 

outstanding, are also likely help to preserve the 

integrity of cultural resources in the river 

corridor. For example, the closure of Badger 

Springs Wash to vehicles has helped to protect 

the integrity of the Badger Springs petroglyph 

site.

Within designated Wilderness Areas, 

prohibitions of motorized and mechanized use, 

as well as restrictions on development would 

continue to preserve cultural resources in their 

current condition.

Alternative B

No impacts are expected from removing the 

Perry Mesa and Larry Canyon ACEC 

designations because the Monument 

Proclamation (Appendix A) provides a higher 

level of protection for cultural resources across a 

more extensive landscape.

An increased number of users resulting from 

Back Country byway designations would likely 

affect cultural resources along Bloody Basin and 

Constellation Mine Roads. Potential impacts 

include the possibility of increased vandalism 

and accelerated erosion at roadside sites. 

Increases in traffic could create a need for more 

frequent maintenance or stabilization to preserve 
Chapter 4

538

the historical masonry features of Constellation 

Road. Other effects include greater 

opportunities for public education and cultural 

heritage tourism.

Designating Tule Creek ACEC would help 

protect cultural resources by restricting 

motorized access and eliminating grazing from 

fenced areas. These actions would limit surface 

disturbances that could damage archaeological 

features.

Alternative C

Impacts from designating Bloody Basin and 

Constellation Mine Roads as Back Country 

byways would be similar to those discussed for 

Alternative B.

Among the special designation areas described 

for Alternative C, the Black Mesa, Tule Creek, 

Black Butte, and Harquahala Mountains ACECs 

are known to contain significant cultural 

resources. These and other proposed ACEC 

designations would include restrictions on 

transportation routes, rights-of-way, livestock 

grazing, and minerals actions. Such restrictions 

would help protect cultural resources by limiting 

public access and ground-disturbing activities.

The management prescriptions for the Black 

Butte ACEC allow for restricting activities that 

might threaten the integrity of the Vulture 

obsidian source, an important cultural resource.

Alternative D

Because Alternative D proposes no Back 

Country byways, no impacts to cultural 

resources are expected.

ACEC designations would have similar impacts 

to those discussed for Alternative C.

Designating more ACECs would further restrict 

motorized access and other land uses, thereby 

better protecting cultural resources.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

No back country byways are proposed; 

therefore, no impacts to cultural resources are 

expected in the national monument or the 

remainder of the planning area 

ACEC designations would have impacts similar 

to those discussed for Alternative C. Rather than 

being designated as an ACEC, the Black Mesa 

area would be nominated to the National 

Register of Historic Places as the Black Mesa 

Rim Archaeological District. Cultural resources 

would be protected by management actions 

identified as common to all Alternatives for the 

Black Mesa/Bumble Bee SCRMA in Section

2.7.3.6. These actions include road closures, 

fencing to exclude livestock from sites, signing, 

and frequent monitoring. This area would also 

be excluded from public use. A National 

Register listing would underscore the cultural 

importance of the area in support of BLM‘s 

efforts to protect it through a partnership with 

the Arizona Site Stewards and other

organizations. The Black Mesa Rim 

Archaeological District would be next to, as well 

as complementary to the Perry Mesa National 

Register District.

4.12.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Land acquisitions could bring into federal 

ownership significant archaeological sites in and 

around Agua Fria National Monument, thereby 

enhancing values that the national monument 

was created to protect. In the monument and the 

rest of the planning area, added protection 

afforded to acquire cultural resources under 

federal management, such as applying the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA), would also help ensure that sites are 

protected and available for future scientific or 

public uses. Land acquisitions could also secure 

places of traditional cultural importance that 

could be managed to protect traditional uses or 

heritage values.

Installing new above-ground utilities in the 

existing right-of-way corridor would degrade the 

physical integrity and visual setting of Agua Fria 
Chapter 4

539

National Monument‘s natural and cultural 

landscape.

The disposal of 54,370 acres of BLM-managed 

lands in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area could potentially place some cultural sites 

at risk, if disposal contributes to urban sprawl 

and increased recreational use that could impact 

sites on public land near the disposal parcels. In

addition, the lands selected for disposal could 

contain cultural resources that would be 

transferred out of federal protection. However, 

before parcels are disposed of, cultural survey is 

conducted and the significance of cultural 

resources found can be a reason to halt the 

disposal. The BLM would identify and evaluate 

cultural resources that would be affected by 

transfer out of federal ownership. Treatment 

plans would be developed and implemented to 

mitigate any adverse effects through monitoring, 

protective stipulations or scientific data 

recovery. In the case of land leased under the 

Recreation & Public Purposes Act, the BLM 

would continue to regularly monitor the 

condition of the sites and the lease holder‘s 

compliance with the required protective 

stipulations.

Alternative B

Non-Federal land acquisitions in and next to 

Agua Fria National Monument would have 

similar impacts to those discussed for 

Alternative A.

Restrictions on new utility or transportation 

corridors or telecommunication site areas in

Agua Fria National Monument would eliminate 

any ground disturbance or visual intrusions that 

could damage the physical integrity or visual 

setting of cultural resources.

Acquiring or disposing of lands in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would 

have similar impacts to those discussed for 

Alternative A, except 58,400 acres would be 

available for disposal.

Widening the Black Canyon utility corridor, and 

creating new electric and gas corridors in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area could 

impact cultural resources that previously were 

not in the path of utility lines. Construction 

activities and access requirements might threaten 

disturbance of archaeological sites along new 

right-of-way corridors or access roads.

Installing above-ground utilities might detract 

from the visual integrity of site settings.

Widening the Black Canyon utility corridor, and 

creating new electric and gas corridors in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area could 

disturb cultural resources in designated areas.

Construction activities and access requirements 

might threaten disturbance of archaeological 

sites in new right-of-way corridors or along new 

access roads. Installing above-ground utilities 

might detract from the visual integrity of site 

settings.

On the other hand, establishing specific 

corridors encourages project applicants to place 

utility lines in certain confined areas, which 

helps to confine cultural resource impacts. In 

these corridors, cultural resource surveys would 

be conducted to identify sites along proposed 

utility lines and ancillary facilities. BLM would 

work with applicants to develop route and 

project design alternatives that emphasize 

avoidance of impacts to cultural resources.

Treatment plans would specify avoidance 

requirements or other actions, such as scientific 

data recovery or aerial installation of power 

lines, to mitigate adverse impacts should 

avoidance be infeasible.

Alternative C

Non-Federal land acquisitions in and next to 

Agua Fria National Monument would have 

similar impacts to those discussed for 

Alternative A.

Eliminating the Black Canyon utility corridor 

from Agua Fria National Monument would 

reduce the likelihood that cultural resources 

would be affected by ground disturbance or 

visual intrusions from future utility 

development.
Chapter 4

540

Widening the Black Canyon utility corridor to 

the west and creating new electric and gas 

corridors in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area could have impacts to cultural resources 

similar to those discussed for Alternative B.

Impacts of land disposal and acquisition in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would be 

similar to Alternative A, except the disposal 

of 600 acres, as identified under method one, is 

not likely to significantly affect cultural 

resources. The disposal of 49,100 acres, as 

delineated through method two, could 

potentially place cultural sites at risk as in 

Alternative A.

Alternative D

Non-Federal land acquisitions in and next to 

Agua Fria National Monument would have 

similar impacts to those discussed for 

Alternative A.

Eliminating the Black Canyon utility corridor 

from Agua Fria National Monument would have 

impacts similar to those discussed for 

Alternative C.

Acquiring State and Federal lands in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would 

likely increase the level of protection for cultural 

resources on those lands, similar to Alternative 

C. Under this Alternative, no lands would be 

available for disposal and so no impacts would 

be expected.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Non-Federal land acquisitions in and next to 

Agua Fria National Monument would have 

similar impacts to those discussed for 

Alternative A.

Projected impacts to cultural resources in Agua 

Fria National Monument would be similar to 

those described for Alternative C.

Projected impacts to cultural resources in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B.

Adjustments were made to the Black Canyon 

Utility corridor boundaries to exclude known 

sensitive cultural resources which reduce 

potential opportunities for utilities to threaten 

significant cultural sites. Any project-related 

impacts to specific sites would be addressed 

through mitigation measures developed during 

site specific environmental analysis, which 

could range from redesigning a utility project to 

avoid sensitive areas, to scientific data recovery.

Impacts from land acquisitions and disposals in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala area would be similar 

to those described for Alternative A, except that 

38,755 acres would be available for disposal. 

SCRMA‘s, which contain the most sensitive 

concentrations of cultural resources within the 

planning area, would be excluded from disposal. 

4.12.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Where BLM implements measures that improve 

soil stability and vegetation cover, cultural 

resources would be better protected from soil 

erosion.

4.12.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Modifying existing fences in Agua Fria National 

Monument to allow wildlife movement would 

have little effect on cultural resources. New 

fences could disturb sites or detract from the 

visual setting of the primitive landscape.

Restricting public access in sensitive wildlife 

habitats would likely help protect cultural 

resources in those areas (e.g. Harquahala 

Mountains, Vulture Mountains).
Chapter 4

541

Alternative B

There are no impacts expected from removing 

Larry Canyon ACEC (designated mainly to 

protect biological resources) because the 

Monument Proclamation (Appendix A) provides 

a higher level of protection for cultural resources 

across a more extensive landscape.

In general, actions implemented to protect 

wildlife habitats would support the protection of 

cultural resources by restricting grounddisturbing activities. Building new water 

sources could disturb surface artifacts and 

features, as well as subsurface archaeological 

deposits. Surveys would be conducted to find 

and avoid archaeological sites or mitigate 

disturbance to them from new water sources.

Ensuring connectivity of habitats for wildlife, 

through such actions as seasonal restrictions on 

travel and other activities in wildlife migration 

corridors, could limit access to cultural resources 

and restrict opportunities for archaeological

research and cultural heritage tourism.

Alternatives C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Limiting vehicle routes in pronghorn corridors 

would restrict access to cultural resources, which 

would protect sites from human intrusions. This 

could limit opportunities for scientific research, 

site monitoring, and interpretive development

when vehicles are needed to transport supplies 

and equipment.

Impacts of modifying fences in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to 

Alternative A.

Closing or limiting vehicle routes in sensitive 

wildlife habitats in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area should help protect cultural 

resources by restricting public access that could 

contribute to intentional or inadvertent damage.

Each Alternative varies the number of vehicle 

routes limited or closed, as described in 

Appendix N. Generally, the more routes closed 

or limited would result in more protection of 

cultural resources.

4.12.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Restrictions on surface disturbances in Agua 

Fria National Monument following current 

interim guidelines would help protect cultural 

resources but could limit archaeological research 

opportunities, as well as the compiling of related 

information useful for public education and 

interpretive development.

BLM would continue to implement actions to 

monitor, document, and protect significant 

cultural resources in both planning areas.

Existing management guidance for the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area emphasizes compliance with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) as described in Section 2.7.1.5.

Proposed authorizations or actions that may 

impact cultural resources would be required to 

implement treatment plans for avoiding or 

mitigating adverse effects. Such actions are 

generally funded by the project applicants or by 

the BLM's programs that initiate them, rather 

than by the cultural heritage program. Impacts 

from management of cultural resources would 

be minimal.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E—Actions Common 

to Alternatives

Under all action Alternatives, there are proactive 

management actions carried out in accordance 

with Section 110 of the NHPA, which mandates 

identifying and protecting archaeological, 

historical, and cultural values, whether or not 

they might be affected by proposed 

undertakings. Inventory, protection, 

documentation, and monitoring projects would 

be described for annual work and strategic 

plans. This proactive approach would result in 

an increase in the knowledge collected from and 

about cultural resources in the area. Long term 
Chapter 4

542

preservation of cultural resources and the 

information they can contribute depends on 

knowing what kinds of sites there are and where 

they are located. In addition, the proactive 

approach contained in the Alternatives 

would improve public enjoyment of the cultural 

resources in the planning areas, leading to 

improved recreational experiences and a 

heightened awareness of the sensitivity of these 

resources.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

proactive management actions would be directed 

mainly toward eight sites in Special Cultural 

Resource Management Areas. These areas 

contain particularly important sites that are most 

at risk of damage from human activities or 

natural processes. However, this management 

focus would not exclude implementing 

necessary protective actions at sites outside the 

Special Cultural Resource Management Areas.

Archaeological inventories (surveys), a proposed 

ethno-historic study of Native American values 

in Agua Fria National Monument, and ongoing 

tribal consultations would identify significant 

resources and provide information critical for 

implementing protection and monitoring. This 

information would also support allocations of 

sites to use categories, allowing for traditional 

uses, access needs, or protective measures that 

might be important to tribes.

Physical and administrative measures 

implemented to protect cultural resources would 

help to stop, limit, or repair damage from 

vandalism, erosion, and other disturbances.

Signs placed to inform the public about 

prohibitions under the ARPA and other laws 

would help protect threatened sites by providing 

relevant information and an alert that the sites 

are being monitored. If vandals damage a 

signed site, they would be less likely to claim 

ignorance of the prohibitions on illegal activities 

and to use this argument in legal defense of their 

actions. Signs would be installed so as not to 

draw undue attention to sites.

Threats to cultural resources would be reduced 

by frequent and systematic monitoring of sites 

by BLM's staff and volunteers; in addition, to 

restricting information about the locations of 

archaeological sites that are not allocated for 

public use.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

greater emphasis would be placed on regular 

monitoring of compliance, with stipulations 

developed to protect cultural resources in R&PP 

Act leases and patents.

Archaeological and historical research projects 

would be consistent with scientific use 

allocations. Scientific research would contribute

significantly to local and regional knowledge of 

human prehistory and history. Research would 

also allow for training students and volunteers 

who need to enhance their field and analytical 

skills. Research would offer opportunities for 

developing new techniques in rock art recording 

and other areas. The information gained through 

research projects would be useful, not only for 

scientists and students, but also for public 

education and interpretive planning.

Noninvasive methods of research and site 

documentation, such as surveying, mapping, 

photography, and remote sensing, would have 

little effect on cultural resources beyond a 

temporary increase in foot traffic and footprints.

Collecting samples of artifacts from the site 

surface would affect site integrity by removing a 

small portion of the site. At sites that receive a 

relatively high number of visitors, welldocumented collections would preserve rare or 

important artifacts (i.e. painted pottery or 

projectile points) that are particularly vulnerable 

to loss through casual collection.

Scientific excavations would disturb cultural 

deposits and could disturb buried human 

remains and associated items. Excavations 

could provide important data as no other means 

could. To limit undue disturbances, the highest 

priority for research projects would be assigned 

to sites threatened by vandalism or other types 

of disturbance, as well as sites determined to be 

suitable for interpretive development. BLM 

would require proper research designs and 

permits. In Agua Fria National Monument 
Chapter 4

543

research plans would be required to ensure that 

most architectural features and cultural deposits 

would remain intact at habitation sites with 

multiple rooms.

Scientific research would be limited to 

noninvasive methods at sites allocated to 

"conservation for future use" in the Agua Fria 

National Monument backcountry, south of Perry 

Tank Canyon. These remote sites would be 

protected from surface disturbances resulting 

from investigations.

Scientific uses (research) could conflict with 

traditional uses (cultural heritage values). Many 

Native Americans might object to research at 

sites that are not threatened by imminent 

damage. In approving research designs, BLM 

would seek to avoid the disturbance or removal 

of Native American human remains and 

associated items and would include stipulations 

to that effect. Tribes would be allowed to 

participate in research projects, which would 

benefit from their cultural perspectives. Other 

benefits could include enhanced knowledge of 

tribal history and the opportunity to include 

Native American perspectives in interpretive 

planning.

Public education, whether through onsite 

interpretive development or offsite programs, 

would increase public understanding of the 

multiple values and irreplaceable nature of 

cultural resources. Benefits would be derived 

through public enjoyment and enhanced 

knowledge, as well as greater support for the 

protection and responsible stewardship of these 

resources. Such efforts would fulfill public 

education mandates under the NHPA and the 

ARPA.

Establishing partnerships with universities, 

museums, nonprofit archaeological and historic 

preservation organizations, government 

agencies, tribes, and community groups would 

enhance opportunities for cost sharing and 

public participation in monitoring, protection, 

research, and education.

Under all Alternatives for both planning areas, 

specific sites would be allocated to public use to 

allow visitors to enjoy, appreciate, and learn 

about cultural resources. Interpretive efforts 

would be coordinated with the recreation 

program staff and, where suitable, with cultural 

heritage tourism programs managed by local 

communities and Government agencies. Efforts 

would be made to develop public use 

opportunities at accessible sites near such 

recreational facilities as public parks, back 

country byways, and hiking trails.

Public use of archaeological sites entails 

potential problems as well as benefits.

Prehistoric and historic sites hold great 

fascination for many people, and there is a high 

public demand for opportunities to visit and 

learn about these sites. Cultural heritage tourism 

is one of the fastest growing sectors of Arizona‘s 

tourism industry, which is the second largest 

industry in the State. Opportunities to visit 

cultural sites allow people to enjoy these 

resources and to learn about prehistoric people, 

archaeology, history, Native American cultures, 

cultural values, scientific methods, and the 

interrelationships between people and the natural 

environments in which they lived. Agua Fria 

National Monument offers particularly 

compelling opportunities to view ancient sites in 

an undisturbed setting that strongly evokes a 

feeling of traveling back in time. Public use also 

provides an excellent opportunity to convey a 

sense of common heritage with the shared 

responsibility of stewardship.

Public use and interpretive development of 

cultural resources also can economically benefit 

local communities. For Arizona's BLM as a 

whole, the magnitude of this economic 

contribution can roughly be estimated by 

multiplying the overall daily spending average 

for cultural heritage tourists of $118 per day by 

the number of visitor days recorded in BLM‘s 

Recreation Management Information System 

(RMIS). RMIS contains visitor use data for 31 

cultural heritage sites and areas administered by 

BLM in Arizona. In Fiscal Year 1999, site 

records show a total of 9,616 visitor days.

Multiplying the total visitor days by the average 

daily spending rate results in an estimated 
Chapter 4

544

annual economic contribution of $1,134,688.

Cultural heritage tourism at BLM's sites in both 

planning areas could contribute several hundred 

thousand dollars annually to the economies of 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties.

Sites that are developed and publicized for 

public use are undoubtedly exposed to visitorcaused damage from surface disturbance and 

erosion, destabilization of standing walls, other 

damage to structures and features, trash 

dumping, multiple trailing, and theft of artifacts.

Additionally, visitors tend to alter the spatial 

distributions of artifacts by picking them up and 

depositing them into piles. Rock art could be 

damaged by climbing, which dislodges boulders; 

touching or applying foreign substances, such as 

chalk; painted or pecked graffiti; or theft. The 

presence of responsible visitors would likely 

discourage major incidents of vandalism or theft 

by others, but it would be difficult to halt the 

cumulative effects of small-scale removal of a 

few artifacts at a time.

BLM would use site-selection criteria and 

protective measures to mitigate the impacts of 

public use. Most sites that are allocated to 

public use would be accessible sites that are 

already well known and visited by the public.

Without BLM's authorization many of these 

sites have been publicized in newspapers, 

magazines, books, and websites. Remote, 

undisturbed sites would not be allocated to 

public use. Sites considered for public use 

would be evaluated as to the feasibility of 

treating or stabilizing selected areas to withstand 

visitation, for example, by building foot trails to 

confine and direct traffic through sites.

Site mapping and documentation would be 

implemented to obtain scientific data and the 

information needed to develop protective 

measures and an interpretive plan. For example, 

architectural mapping and rock art 

documentation would preserve information that 

could be lost through damage. Documentation 

would also provide a baseline condition 

assessment for monitoring and managing 

changes resulting from visitor use over time. All 

public use sites would be systematically 

monitored to evaluate any changes resulting 

from visitation. Ongoing damage could lead to 

use restrictions, new protective measures, or 

suspension of the site‘s public use status.

Not all public use sites would be open to 

commercial tours. Applications for special 

recreation permits would be evaluated on a caseby-case basis. Commercial tour operators would 

be required to adhere to site-specific 

stipulations, for example, that could restrict 

access to certain areas or limit the sizes of tour 

groups. They would be required to help monitor 

damage to the sites. In developing stipulations 

for commercial tours, BLM would consider 

adopting measures implemented by Coconino 

National Forest to manage tour operators to 

archaeological sites in the Sedona area.

Sizes of tour groups, whether led by commercial 

operators, nonprofit organizations, or BLM, 

would be limited to 25 people at a time on a 

single site. Larger groups are difficult to 

monitor and manage and thus pose a greater 

threat of damage.

Requiring that holders of special recreation 

permits provide site visitors with educational 

information on archaeological site preservation 

would help disseminate information on the 

nature and values of cultural resources and the 

need to preserve them.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, five sites in the national 

monument would be allocated to public use 

within a High use SCRMA, and four sites would 

be allocated to public use within a Moderate use 

SCRMA. Levels of public use are described in 

the Cultural Resources section. Except for the 

Pueblo la Plata group of sites, which is 

accessible from Bloody Basin Roadon Perry 

Mesa, the four other sites in the High use area 

are in the Badger Springs and Black Mesa areas 

that are relatively accessible from Interstate 17.

There are inherent conflicts of the proposed 

public use of the Badger Springs and Richinbar 

pueblos on Black Mesa, the Rollie site, and to a 
Chapter 4

545

lesser extent, the Badger Springs petroglyph 

site. Although their accessibility would enhance 

their value as interpretive sites, there is now no 

access to the mesa top sites from the Interstate 

17. A locked gate restricts access to the few 

jeep trails on the mesa, and it is dangerous to 

exit and enter the busy highway from that point.

With the largest number of sites allocated to 

High public use, Alternative B entails the 

greatest potential for damage to cultural 

resources from interpretive development and 

public visitation. Conversely, opportunities for 

public education and enjoyment of cultural sites 

would also be more numerous under Alternative 

B.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, sites could be selected for public use in all 

eight of the Special Cultural Resource 

Management Areas (Appendix F). As in the 

monument, Alternative B entails the greatest 

potential for damage to sites from public use, as 

well as the greatest potential benefit of public 

education and the recreational opportunities and 

economic returns of cultural heritage tourism.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument, only the 

Pueblo la Plata group of sites would be allocated 

to a High public use SCRMA and eight sites 

would be allocated to a moderate public use

SCRMA. Alternative C would switch four sites 

from High use prescriptions to less-intensive 

management actions. Although they would be 

developed at a less-intensive level, there are 

inherent conflicts in the proposed public use of 

the Badger Springs and Richinbar pueblos on 

Black Mesa, the Rollie site, and to a lesser 

extent, the Badger Springs petroglyph site as 

stated in Alternative B.

With fewer sites allocated to High public use, 

Alternative C entails less potential for damage to 

cultural resources from interpretive development 

and public visitation. Conversely, opportunities 

for public education and enjoyment of cultural 

sites would be more restricted due to more 

primitive facilities and fewer tours under this 

Alternative.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

sites that are described for the plan, as well as 

sites that meet the guidelines for public use 

allocations, could be selected for public use in 

four of the Special Cultural Resource 

Management Areas (Appendix F) (Black 

Canyon corridor, Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria, 

Wickenburg/Vulture, and Harquahala 

Mountains). The other four Special Cultural 

Resource Management Areas would be excluded 

from public use allocations. Alternative C

entails a moderate potential for damage to sites 

from public use, as well as a moderate potential 

benefit in public education and the recreational 

opportunities and economic returns of cultural 

heritage tourism.

Alternative D

Alternative D would allocate no sites in Agua 

Fria National Monument to High public use and 

only the Pueblo la Plata site group to Moderate 

public use and associated management actions.

All areas outside the Pueblo la Plata group of 

sites would be characterized by Low public use, 

with no interpretive development or commercial 

tours.

With only one site area allocated to public use, 

Alternative D entails the least potential for 

damage to cultural resources from interpretive 

development and public visitation. Conversely, 

opportunities for public education and 

enjoyment of cultural sites would be the most 

limited.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala area, 

sites described for the plan and sites that meet 

the guidelines for public use allocations would 

be identified for public use in two of the Special 

Cultural Resource Management Areas (Black 

Canyon corridor and Harquahala Mountains).

The other six Special Cultural Resource 

Management Areas would be excluded from 

public use allocations. Alternative D entails the 

least potential for damage to sites from public 

use, as well as the least potential benefit for 
Chapter 4

546

public education and the recreational 

opportunities and economic returns of cultural 

heritage tourism.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the Agua Fria National Monument two 

accessible sites would be allocated to a High 

public use SCRMA under High use 

prescriptions:

the Pueblo la Plata group on Perry 

Mesa, and 

the Teskey homestead site near Cordes 

Lakes. 

All sites are within the Front Country RMZ and 

are also accessible from well-established roads.

Six sites would be allocated to a Moderate 

public use SCRMA under management actions 

defined for this level of use. The Badger 

Springs and Richinbar pueblos would be 

excluded from public use with no interpretive 

development. A site at the southern end of 

Black Mesa, accessible by hiking trails, would 

be added to those allocated to Moderate public 

use. 

At least 60,000 acres (85 percent of Agua Fria 

National Monument) would be excluded from 

public use allocations. In these remote areas, 

visitors could encounter and observe 

archaeological sites under conditions of solitude 

in pristine settings. In the public use 

SCRMA's, interpretive uses would be sitespecific and confined to the eight site areas and 

their Passage RMZs.

Alternative E balances the potential for damage 

and the availability of opportunities for public 

education and enjoyment of cultural sites.

Interpretive plans with monitoring and 

protection measures would be implemented to 

mitigate adverse impacts from visitation. This 

Alternative satisfies the public‘s desire to visit 

Agua Fria National Monument‘s archaeological 

sites, by including sites allocated to High and 

Moderate public use levels on both Perry Mesa 

and Black Mesa. Opportunities would be open 

to those who wish to take advantage of tours of 

more developed facilities at accessible sites, as 

well as those who would like to hike to less 

accessible sites that have fewer visitors but offer 

interesting interpretive information.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

sites that are described for the plan and those 

that meet the guidelines for public use 

allocations would be selected for public use in 

six of the eight Special Cultural Resource 

Management Areas. The Black Mesa/Bumble 

Bee and Harcuvar Mountains Special Cultural 

Resource Management Areas would be excluded 

from public use allocations to protect fragile and 

significant sites from damage. In the other six 

Special Cultural Resource Management Areas, 

selected prehistoric and historic sites would be 

managed for interpretive development, 

educational uses, and public visitation.

Alternative E entails a moderate potential for 

damage to sites from public use, as well as a 

relatively high potential benefit for public 

education and the recreational opportunities and 

economic returns of cultural heritage tourism.

4.12.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.12.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Limiting the use of motorized vehicles to 

designated routes would help protect cultural 

resources, while continued use of roads leading 

to large archaeological sites might increase the 

potential for vandalism and damage.

Continued protection and interpretation of the 

historic Harquahala Peak Observatory would 

enhance opportunities for public education and 

cultural heritage tourism.
Chapter 4

547

No limits would be established for the number 

of permitted commercial guided tours and 

special events; however, SRPs would include 

stipulations designed to protect cultural 

resources and archaeological sites allowed for 

such use. However, the potential for damage to 

cultural resources could continue as public 

awareness and subsequent casual use of these 

areas is increased.

Cross-country non-motorized travel by foot, 

horse or mountain bike could lead to the creation 

of permanent trails, sometimes called ―social‖ 

trails that braid across the landscape. These usercreated and non-engineered trails may cross and 

impact fragile and undocumented cultural 

resources. These cultural features could be 

inadvertently damaged by trampling to a degree 

that their scientific and education values or 

impaired or lost. This use is most likely to 

happen in areas close to population centers, 

trailheads, or motorized routes. To date, this has 

been a minor concern to archaeologists due to 

greater impacts from vandalism and motorized 

vehicles.

Alternative B

Prohibiting the placing of geocaches on 

archaeological sites would help protect sites in 

Agua Fria National Monument and in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

Restricting campfires and camping near 

archaeological sites would reduce damage from 

the following:

disturbing the ground‘s surface, 

collecting wood components from 

prehistoric or historic structures, 

dismantling features to create fire rings, 

and 

contaminating archaeological deposits. 

Where camping is not confined to previously 

disturbed areas, such activities could disturb 

subtle features that are near sites or places not 

easily recognized as archaeological sites.

SRPs would include stipulations developed to 

monitor and protect archaeological sites that 

have been allocated to public use. In addition to 

an overall limit of 25 people per tour group 

visiting a site at any one time, these provisions 

would help protect cultural resources from the 

disturbance of increased visitation.

Impacts on cultural resources from cross-country 

travel by non-motorized visitors are considered 

to be similar to those described under 

Alternative A.

Public outreach and environmental education 

programs would help protect cultural resources 

by making the public more aware of their values, 

fragile nature, and need for protection.

Conversely, the message of responsible 

recreation and resource stewardship would 

benefit cultural resources by discouraging 

activities that damage both cultural and natural 

resources.

BLM would consider converting some reclaimed 

routes to hiking trails. Limiting vehicle traffic to 

and on fragile sites would help protect the 

surface of these sites and could deter illegal 

pothunting by increasing the difficulty of 

hauling equipment and illegally-collected items 

to and from sites.

Alternative B would allocate a relatively large 

area of Agua Fria National Monument (57,900 

acres) to the Front Country RMZ. Among the 

Alternatives, it would allow for the most 

extensive network of travel routes and a higher 

number of special recreation permits.

Additionally, it would allow for potentially 

higher numbers of visitors with a larger number 

of trails and other recreational facilities.

Relatively high levels of visitor traffic could 

increase the potential for cultural resources 

damage. Impacts to archaeological sites from 

recreation could include the following:

surface disturbance, 

artifact theft and breakage, 

artifact piling, 

wall destabilization, 

rock art graffiti, and 
Chapter 4

548

casual digging. 

Conversely, the relatively large Front 

Country RMZ would also allow for more 

interpretation, which could enhance the public‘s 

understanding and stewardship of cultural 

resources. Limiting access and recreational 

facilities in the Back Country RMZ would result 

in fewer visitors with a lower level of impacts on 

cultural resources.

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be the same as those described for 

the monument.

Casual, unmonitored activities would likely be 

the greatest threat, as visitors travel further into 

remote areas that have previously received few 

visitors. BLM would be better able to manage 

the impacts of special events because these 

events would not be placed in zones of high 

cultural resource density. Locations for 

proposed courses and staging areas would be 

evaluated through cultural resource inventories, 

and, if approved, courses would be designed to 

avoid or mitigate damage to archaeological 

sites. Ultimately, special events could 

contribute to an increase in public awareness and 

casual use of these areas.

Alternative B would provide the most extensive 

opportunities for cooperative efforts in site 

interpretation and cultural heritage tourism 

projects. Potential partners could include many 

agencies, parks, and communities in the 

Phoenix, Black Canyon City, Prescott, Dewey, 

Yarnell, Wickenburg, and Lake Pleasant areas.

Such partnerships could promote the following:

expanded recreational opportunities, 

enhanced public education and 

understanding of cultural resources, and 

increased revenues from cultural 

heritage tourism. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would allocate a smaller 

proportion of Agua Fria National Monument 

(42,000 acres) to the Front Country RMZ with 

an expected reduction in levels of recreational 

facilities and visitation. Impacts to 

archaeological sites from visitor use are 

expected to be less extensive in the areas 

allocated to the Back Country RMZ than in the 

areas allocated to the Front Country RMZ. Site 

visitation and educational opportunities from the 

interpretive development of archaeological sites 

would also decline.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

reductions in travel routes are expected to 

contribute to lower levels of unintentional and 

intentional damage to cultural resources.

Opportunities for cultural heritage tourism 

partnerships would slightly decrease. However, 

communities and agencies in the Phoenix, Lake 

Pleasant, Black Canyon City, and Wickenburg 

areas could still take advantage of interpretive 

opportunities, particularly those developed in 

conjunction with parks and recreational trails.

Impacts on cultural resources from cross-country 

travel by non-motorized visitors are considered 

to be similar to those described under 

Alternative A.

Alternative D

Alternative D would allocate a small area of 

Agua Fria National Monument (1,530 acres) to 

the Front Country RMZ and result in a decline in 

levels of visitation to interpreted sites and 

recreational facilities, which would be limited to 

the Pueblo la Plata area and zones near major 

roads. Alternative D would also close the largest 

number of routes and would allow only limited 

motorized use in the extensive Back Country 

RMZ.

Emphasizing primitive recreation would reduce 

the levels of damage to archaeological sites from 

interpretive development, vehicle use, and 

public visitation. Conversely, this would limit 

the regular monitoring of archaeological sites in 

remote areas, which could leave some sites more 

vulnerable to vandalism. Alternative D would 

also restrict campground development and target 

shooting, which would help protect sites. There 

would be fewer opportunities for public 
Chapter 4

549

education through site interpretation.

Restrictions on access for permitted scientific 

studies would limit the scientific use of sites and 

the gathering of information useful for research 

and site management.

Alternative D would place more emphasis 

on non-motorized recreation in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. Additional travel 

routes would be closed further reducing 

potential damage to cultural resources. As in 

Agua Fria National Monument, an emphasis on 

primitive recreation would reduce the levels of 

damage to archaeological sites. Site visitation, 

educational opportunities, and community 

partnerships for cultural heritage tourism would 

decline. Cooperative efforts between the 

cultural heritage and recreation programs would 

focus on the existing interpretive facilities on 

Harquahala Peak and the Black Canyon 

recreational trail.

Impacts on cultural resources from cross-country 

travel by non-motorized visitors are considered 

to be similar to those described under 

Alternative A.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Alternative E would allocate 11,900 acres of 

Agua Fria National Monument to the Front 

Country RMZ. Developed interpretive and 

recreational facilities would focus on a small 

number of areas, such as Badger Springs and 

Pueblo la Plata. The relatively large area 

allocated to the Back Country RMZ, along with 

a number of route closures, would contribute to 

protecting cultural resources, while still allowing 

for unobtrusive interpretive uses and access for 

scientific research and monitoring. Restrictions 

on camping and target shooting would also help 

protect cultural resources.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

Alternative E would involve an intermediate 

level of recreational facilities, and route 

closures. Impacts to cultural resources would be 

similar to those described for Alternative C.

Recreational activities would continue to 

threaten damage to cultural resources, 

particularly in areas most accessible from urban 

zones and major roads. Alternative E

emphasizes developing community partnerships 

to enhance interpretive opportunities, 

environmental education, and the promotion of 

responsible stewardship. Such activities would 

enhance the long-term effectiveness of public 

education, stewardship, and cultural resource 

protection by enlisting citizens as partners in 

these efforts. Impacts on cultural resources from 

cross-country travel by non-motorized visitors 

are considered to be similar to those described 

under Alternative A.

4.12.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

No VRM classes have been established under 

this Alternative, which could result in the steady 

degradation of visual landscapes that contribute 

to both prehistoric and historic cultural sites.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts to cultural resources from implementing 

management actions in accordance with VRM 

classes would be dependent on the presence of 

sites and the extent to which the surrounding 

landscape would be modified. VRM classes and 

actions could affect qualities that contribute to 

the eligibility of cultural resource sites for 

nomination to the National Register of Historic 

Places. These qualities include integrity of 

setting (which refers to an undisturbed 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). ). Long-term alterations of a site‘s 

setting could detract from its status as National 

Register-eligible and could limit its potential use 

for public education. For example, integrity of 

setting and feeling are important aspects of 

archaeological sites in Agua Fria National 

Monument. As a result, a large portion of the 

area can be regarded as a cultural landscape 

preserved through time, which would be 
Chapter 4

550

protected under the proposed VRM classes 

defined for Alternative E. 

4.12.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Grazing impacts in Agua Fria National 

Monument can be considered from a historical 

perspective. The greatest livestock damage to 

archaeological sites most likely occurred before 

the implementing of the Taylor Grazing Act 

(TGA) in the 1930s. From about 1915 to 1926, 

the Coburn Brothers Cattle Company operated 

the Horseshoe Ranch and ran at least 12,000 

head of cattle on Perry Mesa and in Tonto 

National Forest (Cordes 2002:22). The 

Horseshoe Ranch today maintains fewer than 

400 cattle, which are dispersed over the mesas 

during much of the year.

Continued livestock grazing could affect cultural 

resources in both planning areas. Cattle 

trampling can crush, break, and relocate surface 

artifacts. Standing walls can collapse or become 

destabilized as a result of cattle rubbing up 

against them and cattle trails can accelerate site 

erosion. The continued presence of cattle in

Agua Fria National Monument might also 

detract from the primitive experience for 

visitors.

Soil erosion caused by the loss of stabilizing 

vegetation or the trampling of streambanks in 

riparian areas could damage sites. Damage is 

expected to be greatest in sensitive sites where 

livestock tend to concentrate, such as at corrals, 

water sources, and the livestock trails that lead 

to them. Fewer impacts are expected from 

dispersed use.

In both planning areas, implementing the 

guidelines adopted in Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (Land Health Standards) would 

maintain or improve ground cover and soil 

stability and reduce destructive impacts to 

cultural resources from soil erosion.

Installing and maintaining fences, cattle guards, 

cattle tanks, and other range management 

facilities might damage the physical or visual 

integrity of cultural resources. The proposed 

locations of new facilities would be surveyed in 

advance to determine archaeological site impacts 

and to avoid or mitigate them.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to 

cultural resources from rangeland and grazing 

management in upland areas would be similar to 

those described for Alternative A. Grazing in 

riparian areas would be limited to winter, which 

would reduce the incidence of impacts to 

archaeological sites in those areas.

Continued grazing in the Front Country RMZ 

would likely increase the potential for conflict 

between public use of the monument and 

grazing use, especially near archaeological sites 

(e.g. Pueblo la Plata) that are slated to be 

developed for public interpretation. To mitigate 

such conflicts, cattle could be excluded from 

areas on and near interpretive sites.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would also be similar to those described 

for Alternative A. Seasonal use of riparian areas 

would be limited to the winter, where practical.

This could reduce impacts to cultural resources 

from soil erosion resulting from grazing.

Grazing could be limited if needed to protect 

natural or cultural resources. Such limits could 

include seasonal restrictions or excluding 

grazing in affected areas. Allotment boundaries 

could be adjusted to preclude grazing on lands 

devoted to a public purpose, such as an 

interpretive site. This provision would reduce 

conflicts between visitor use and the presence of 

cattle. BLM could also exclude livestock 

through fencing or other measures from sites 

that are suffering a loss of physical integrity 

from grazing and that need to be protected from 

further impacts. Installing and maintaining 

fences, cattle guards, cattle tanks, and other 

range management facilities would have the 

same impacts as those described for Alternative 
Chapter 4

551

A, as would implementing the guidelines 

adopted in Arizona Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration (Land Health Standards).

Alternative C

In both planning areas reductions in upland 

grazing and the removal of livestock from 

riparian habitats would reduce damage to 

cultural resources in nearby areas. Other 

impacts are expected to be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative B.

Alternative D

Eliminating grazing on public lands in Agua Fria 

National Monument and in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would eliminate 

grazing-related damage to cultural resources. In 

Agua Fria National Monument this action would 

remove the potential for conflict between the 

interpretive use of Pueblo la Plata and ranching, 

as well as enhance the overall primitive 

experience for visitors.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In both planning areas, grazing impacts would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B.

4.12.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Any surface disturbance resulting from minerals 

actions could degrade cultural resources. All 

authorized mineral-related activities beyond 

casual use require a survey to determine if 

cultural resources are present. Hence, in all 

cases impacts are mitigated. During the surveys 

some cultural resources might be overlooked 

because they are buried and not visible on the 

surface. Therefore, in these cases mineral 

development might expose them and cause 

inadvertent damage.

The monument's proclamation (Appendix A) 

prohibits new mining claims, mineral material 

sales, and leasing of mineral or geothermal 

resources, as well as protects cultural resources 

from any mining disturbances. Two active 

mining claims, held by prospecting clubs for 

casual mining use, existed before the national 

monument designation. Because only casual use 

is allowed without a formal determination of 

valid existing rights, should the claimant decide 

to develop these claims beyond such use, a 

mining plan of operation would be required for 

BLM's review. This process involves lengthy 

and complicated validity studies to determine if 

a mineral discovery warrants development.

Should the claim be found valid, the claimant is 

still required to comply with laws regulating 

mining and not create any undue and 

unnecessary degradation of the environment.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

developing leasable, saleable, and locatable 

minerals can damage cultural resources through 

surface and subsurface disturbance or removal 

of archaeological deposits. Furthermore, there 

is the potential for the removal, whether 

intentional or not, of boulders containing 

petroglyphs or other rock art. The visual 

impacts of mining can degrade the visual setting 

and related aspects of integrity of archaeological 

sites.

Archaeological surveys are completed to find 

and evaluate cultural resources that could be 

affected by proposed mining. BLM has the 

discretion to deny approval of proposed mineral 

material sales that would damage cultural 

resources. Approved mining plans contain 

provisions to avoid or mitigate damage to 

cultural resources, if such resources would be 

affected. Since it is often difficult to implement 

avoidance, scientific data recovery is typically 

implemented as a mitigation measure. However, 

casual mining in areas smaller than 5 acres 

typically does not require mining plans. As 

such, it is difficult to monitor and mitigate the 

effects of casual mining on cultural resources or 

the effects of related activities such as camping.
Chapter 4

552

Alternative B

Minerals management would not affect cultural 

resources under any Alternatives in Agua Fria 

National Monument because of prohibitions 

against mining.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

cultural resources would be protected by closing 

areas to mineral leasing, mineral material sales, 

and mineral entry. Where cultural resources are 

present, such closures would reduce damage to 

their physical and visual integrity. ACECs, lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics, 

and lands that are reconveyed to the Federal 

Government could be closed. 

Alternative B would close the fewest number of 

areas to mining-related activities. The potential 

impacts of mineral development on cultural 

resources would be greatest under this 

Alternative.

Alternative C

Impacts would be less than Alternative B, 

because Alternative C includes a number of 

ACECs and lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics that have provisions 

for restricting mining.

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C, 

except Alternative D also restricts activities on 

lands that are reconveyed to the Federal 

Government. Therefore, the potential impacts of 

mineral development on cultural resources 

would be the least under Alternative D.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the Agua Fria National Monument, the 

impacts of minerals management would be as 

described for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area the 

impacts of minerals management on cultural 

resources would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B.

Tule Creek ACEC would be withdrawn from 

mineral entry, closed to leasing and mineral 

material disposals. In the Black Canyon MU, 

riparian areas on reconveyed lands would be 

closed to mineral material sales, which could 

include sand and gravel mining. These 

restrictions would help protect cultural resources 

in Tule Creek ACEC and in riparian zones of the 

Black Canyon area.

4.12.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Wildfires and prescribed burns can affect 

cultural resources through direct exposure to fire 

and disturbances from the methods used to 

suppress and manage fires, as well as natural 

fuels. Flammable structures and features, such 

as wooden buildings and mining headframes, are 

particularly vulnerable to damage and 

destruction by fire. Damage to historical 

structures is a particular management concern 

for sites in the Bradshaw and Weaver 

Mountains.

The prehistoric residents of Agua Fria National 

Monument were likely to be well acquainted 

with fire as a natural process in this fire-adapted 

grassland ecosystem. The remains of their 

villages have likely been burned many times 

over the past centuries. Evidence reveals that 

the relatively low intensity of the grassland fires 

has spared major damage to archaeological 

sites. The Baby Canyon Ruin in Agua Fria 

National Monument and the Squaw Creek Ruin 

in the Tonto National Forest have been burned 

over in the past decade. Neither site has 

suffered damage to walls, artifacts, or rock art.

The loss of vegetation from fire could increase 

the potential for soil erosion in susceptible areas, 

although this problem has not been observed at 

these two sites.

Prescribed burns would temporarily affect the 

visual setting of cultural resources for visitors to 

Agua Fria National Monument. In some cases, 

prescribed burns have benefited scientific 
Chapter 4

553

studies by exposing previously obscure 

archaeological features in the national 

monument, such as agricultural terraces (North 

2002).

Fire suppression and fuels management 

techniques could cause surface disturbance to 

cultural resources. Surface disturbance could 

result from staging activities, vehicle tracks, the 

use of earth-moving equipment, or applying 

mechanical treatments to manage vegetation.

The use of heavy equipment and mechanical 

thinning of trees also could temporarily disturb 

soils and increase the potential for erosion.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Archaeological surveys in both planning areas, 

including inventories of 10 percent of areas 

above 3,500 feet in elevation in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would help to find 

sensitive cultural resources that need to be 

avoided by fire and fuels management, or that 

require special attention during wildfire 

suppression.

BLM would implement measures to protect 

cultural resources, such as the use of minimum 

impact suppression tactics to reduce damage to 

archaeological sites as well as to natural 

resources. Other protection measures could 

include the following:

using foam or retardant to protect 

historic structures; 

removing fuels around vulnerable sites; 

creating fire breaks that would protect 

sites while avoiding damage to them; 

and 

covering rock art in fire retardant fabric. 

The impacts of fire management under these 

Alternatives would be similar to those discussed 

for Alternative A.

4.12.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts to cultural 

resources expected.

4.12.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action) 

Continued restrictions that limit the use of 

motorized vehicles to designated routes in Agua 

Fria National Monument would help protect 

cultural resources.

Continued use of existing roads leading to large 

archaeological sites in Agua Fria National 

Monument might increase the potential for 

vandalism and damage to these sites as more 

people visit the monument.

Alternative B

All Alternatives include closures of selected 

routes that lead directly to archaeological sites 

that have been damaged or are threatened by 

vandalism. In many cases, there is no other 

obvious purpose for these routes. Where such 

routes are being reclaimed by natural processes, 

as at Pueblo Pato in Agua Fria National 

Monument, or where they exist at other sites that 

have been allocated to public use, BLM would 

consider converting them to hiking trails. 

Limiting vehicle traffic to and on fragile sites 

would help protect the surface of the sites and 

could deter illegal digging and collecting 

activities by complicating the task of hauling 

equipment and collected items to and from sites.

Alternative B would allow for a more extensive 

network of transportation routes, which 

could increase the potential for cultural 

resources damage. Direct impacts could include 

disturbance to surface features such as walls, 
Chapter 4

554

soils, and artifacts from vehicle traffic resulting 

in damage, breakage, or displacement. A more 

extensive road network would facilitate public 

access to a larger number of archaeological sites, 

increasing their vulnerability to vandalism and 

artifact theft.

Conversely, increased access would also allow 

for more interpretation, which could enhance the 

public‘s understanding and stewardship of 

cultural resources. Limiting access in the Back 

Country RMZ would result in fewer visitors 

with a lower level of impacts on cultural 

resources.

A more extensive network of transportation 

routes would also be supported in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. In general, 

relatively higher levels of public access would 

pose greater threats to the integrity of cultural 

resources, as described above for Agua Fria 

National Monument.

Alternative C 

Alternative C would allocate fewer 

transportation routes than would be available for 

travel under Alternative B. More limited public 

access would be expected to reduce the impacts 

to archaeological sites from vehicle and visitor 

traffic in both planning areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except Alternative C would allocate fewer 

transportation routes. More limited public 

access would be expected to reduce the impacts 

to archaeological sites from vehicle and visitor 

traffic in both planning areas. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would close the largest number of 

transportation routes in both planning areas. In 

the monument, only limited motorized use 

would be allowed in the extensive Back Country 

zone. While this would reduce the levels of 

damage to archaeological sites from interpretive 

development, vehicle use, and public visitation, 

fewer areas would be available for site visitation 

and cultural heritage tourism projects.

Restricted access would also limit the regular 

monitoring of archaeological sites in remote 

areas, which could make some sites more 

vulnerable to vandalism. Restrictions on access 

for permitted scientific studies would limit the 

scientific use of sites and the gathering of 

information useful for research and resource 

management.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts from travel management would be 

similar to those described under Alternative C

for Agua Fria National Monument. The number 

of route closures under this Alternative would 

contribute to protecting cultural resources, while 

still allowing for unobtrusive interpretive uses 

and access for scientific research and 

monitoring.

The following table describes the distances, at 1⁄4 

mile intervals, between the nearest open routes 

and the 12 most vulnerable sites/site clusters, 

under existing baseline conditions and as 

designated in the Final RMP. The specific 

names and locations of the sites are available for 

review by qualified researchers at the Phoenix 

District.

Increased distances between open routes and 

vulnerable sites, especially across rocky surfaces 

and rugged terrain, are expected to enhance site 

protection, by reducing access and visibility. In 

regard to the 12 most vulnerable site areas, the 

route designations would increase the accessible 

distances to 7 sites, by designating current routes 

as ―closed‖ or for ―administrative use only.‖ 

The proposed route system also would maintain 

the current closures of two routes that once led 

directly to sites, but now restrict vehicle traffic. 

Under the current transportation system, there 

are 7 vulnerable sites that are less than 1⁄2 mile, 

and 5 sites that are further than 1⁄2 mile, from an 

open route. Under the proposed transportation 

system, there are 3 sites that would be less than 

1⁄2 mile, and 9 sites that would be further than 1⁄2 

mile, from an open route. 

Prior to the late 1990‘s, roads led directly to 7 of 

the 12 most vulnerable sites/site areas. Under 
Chapter 4

555

the proposed transportation system, direct route 

access will be cut off to all but one of these sites. 

This particular site on Black Mesa, which has 

been identified for possible interpretive 

development, will be closely monitored to detect 

any vandalism; a nearby, redundant route to the 

site will be closed. 

For these 12 particularly vulnerable sites, 

restricted access to 9 sites would result from 

maintaining existing closures or changing the 

closest, currently open routes to ―closed‖ or 

―administrative use only.‖ At the other 3 sites, 

proposed route closures would reduce the 

number and density of open roads in the 

surrounding areas. The elimination of redundant 

routes and overall route densities would reduce 

impacts to sites from vandalism and soil erosion.

In general, and in terms of cumulative impacts 

from vandalism and erosion, cultural resources 

would be protected by the elimination of 

redundant routes and overall route densities; the 

closure of at least 9 routes leading to canyon 

rims; and the closure of several routes near the 

river and creeks. Mitigation measures, which 

could include additional route closures, would 

be implemented if new surveys or monitoring 

observations revealed cases of damage 

associated with open routes.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

Alternative E would involve an intermediate 

level of route closures. Impacts to cultural 

resources would likely be similar to those 

described for Alternative C.

4.12.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under current resource management plans, no 

areas have been specifically identified for 

management of wilderness characteristics.

Therefore, there are no associated impacts on 

cultural resources.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Management of wilderness characteristics would 

maintain natural landscapes and remoteness, 

with an emphasis on primitive and nonmotorized recreation. Limits on public access 

and motorized travel would reduce damage to 

remote archaeological sites from vehicle traffic 

and visitor use. Maintenance of wilderness 

characteristics would also help to preserve the 

visual integrity and natural settings of 

archaeological sites and cultural 

landscapes. On-the-other-hand, cultural 

research requiring motorized access and 

mechanized equipment could be hampered or 

foregone if such research activities are not 

authorized.

4.13 Impacts on 

Paleontological 

Resources

Impacts to paleontological resources include 

effects on resources such as petrified wood and 

other fossils. Paleontological resources are a 

nonrenewable resource that provides scientific 

value and clues to geologic history. Although 

only a minimal amount of paleontological 

research has been conducted in the region, 11 

paleontological sites are known to occur near the 

planning areas. None of the known 

paleontological sites are on BLM-managed land 

in either of the planning areas.

The geology of the planning areas is not 

conducive to paleontological resources. The 

potential for paleontological resources does; 

however, exist, and could be affected by surface 

disturbance. However, the potential for such 

impacts is very low. Many of the known sites in 

surrounding areas consist of remains of extinct 

mammoths that were unearthed during 

development projects. As applies to cultural 

resources, BLM authorizations for surfacedisturbing activities would require that, in the 

event of a discovery, the BLM would be notified 
Chapter 4

556

and the work would be stopped until the BLM 

could evaluate the discovery and the need for 

scientific data recovery. Likewise, the BLM 

would complete a scientific evaluation of any 

paleontological resources discovered during 

cultural resource surveys. 

4.13.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument, no significant 

paleontological resources are known to exist.

As such, impacts to paleontological resources 

from Special Designations are expected to be 

minimal. In areas of the monument where 

paleontological resources may be discovered, 

management for reduced public use would 

diminish potential impacts to these resources. 

Paleontological resources in existing wilderness 

areas in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would continue to be at low risk of 

inadvertent damage. Since these areas are 

closed to roads and are rarely visited, the 

impacts to paleontological resources are 

expected to be minimal.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts to paleontological resources in Agua 

Fria National Monument are expected to be the 

same as described for Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

fencing Tule Creek ACEC would prevent 

damage to paleontological resources caused by 

OHV traffic and livestock. Paleontological 

resources in other Special Area Designations

would be protected more than under Alternative 

A as restrictions to surface-disturbing activities 

are implemented.

4.13.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Activities allowed under valid existing rights in 

Agua Fria National Monument could affect 

paleontological resources if resources are 

discovered near land clearing and construction.

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area paleontological 

resources could be affected if land clearing and 

construction disturb the soil near paleontological 

sites. Additionally, construction in existing 

corridors and at telecommunication sites could 

inadvertently damage paleontological sites.

Building of new utility lines could disturb 

paleontological resources by developing service 

roads and by other digging.

Building or maintaining utility and 

transportation corridors and telecommunication 

sites in Agua Fria National Monument is not 

expected to affect paleontological resources.

4.13.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and

E (Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument, current 

management prescriptions to improve soil 

stability, increase vegetation cover, and reduce 

erosion might help preserve potential 

paleontological sites.

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area no impacts to 

paleontological resources are expected from 

management of soil, water, and air resources.
Chapter 4

557

4.13.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, no impacts to 

paleontological resources are expected from 

biological resource management.

4.13.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Actions taken to protect cultural resources in 

Agua Fria National Monument would likely 

help preserve paleontological sites as well.

Unknown paleontological resources could be 

unearthed or otherwise disturbed by ground 

disturbance in developing public access to 

cultural sites.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area no 

impacts are expected to paleontological 

resources from CRM.

4.13.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

Under Alternative E management actions, BLM 

would classify areas according to their potential 

to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. The 

classification process would result in a 

sensitivity map that would enable BLM to direct 

protection measures or research projects toward 

the most significant or threatened areas. The 

sensitivity map would also help BLM screen 

proposed actions to determine potential effects 

on paleontological resources.

4.13.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the current management of both planning 

areas, concentrated recreation in certain areas 

could inadvertently damage paleontological 

resources. Illegal OHV use of four-wheel-drive 

vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, and motorcycles 

might damage paleontological resources on or 

near the surface. Paleontological resources 

might be destroyed as vehicles drive over them.

Some people might also use these types of 

vehicles to drive to remote areas, where they 

could illegally collect paleontological resources. 

Limiting OHV travel and posting directional 

signing reduces the likelihood of inadvertent 

damage to paleontological resources. Yet the 

presence of roads open to the public can 

inadvertently encourage travel to remote areas.

Recreation management common to all

Alternatives could damage paleontological 

resources through ground disturbance resulting 

from developing recreational facilities. In the 

event of discoveries, impacts would be mitigated 

through avoidance, redesign, or scientific data 

recovery. 

In general, however, few impacts are expected 

as the geological character of the planning areas 

is not conducive to the widespread presence of 

significant paleontological resources. 

Alternative B

Impacts would be the same as described 

in Alternative A. Relative to Alternative B, a 

further reduction in miles of routes could reduce 

the potential impacts of motorized recreation to 

paleontological resources in both planning 

areas.

Impacts would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A. However, a reduction in 
Chapter 4

558

miles of routes could reduce the potential 

impacts of motorized recreation to 

paleontological resources in both planning 

areas.

Alternative C

Impacts to would be the same as described 

in Alternative B, except to a lesser degree due to 

the reduced amount of Front Country and 

Passage RMZs (42,700 acres).

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except the closure of more routes 

(382 miles would provide increased protection 

to paleontological over the previous alternative. 

Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as described 

in Alternative A. Relative to Alternative C, a 

further reduction in miles of routes could reduce 

the potential impacts of motorized recreation to 

paleontological resources in both planning 

areas.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to previous Alternatives, but with 

fewer closed routes than Alternative D, and 

fewer routes open to travel than Alternatives B 

and C. 

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would be less than Alternative B, but 

more than Alternatives C and D.

4.13.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.13.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument, grazing might affect 

paleontological resources by reducing vegetation 

and increasing erosion, leading to potential 

exposure and degradation of fossils.

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, despite improved 

rangeland management practices from 

implementing the Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing

Administration (Land Health Standards), 

continued grazing might decrease vegetation 

growth, increase soil erosion rates, and disturb 

paleontological sites.

The Land Health Standards seek to maintain or 

promote ground cover that would provide for 

infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, 

and soil stability, thereby reducing the 

following:

erosion rates, 

potential for exposure, and 

the degradation of paleontological sites. 

Alternatives B and C

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative A.

Alternative D

Elimination of grazing, as in Alternative D, 

could increase soil stabilization by increasing 

vegetation cover, reducing loss of 

paleontological resources to soil erosion.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative A.
Chapter 4

559

4.13.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Under the current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument minerals management is not 

expected to affect paleontological resources. In 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, any 

mining might disturb such resources, but if 

fossils are found during cultural resources 

surveys or mining, BLM stipulations would 

require that the work cease until the BLM can 

evaluate the find. Potential damage, if reported, 

would be mitigated as suitable and practical, 

through avoidance or scientific data recovery.

4.13.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Where prescribed burning is conducted in Agua 

Fria National Monument, the use of heavy 

equipment and mechanical thinning of trees 

could temporarily promote an increase in soil 

disturbance and affect potential paleontological 

sites.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In both planning areas, fire-related activities that 

disturb the surface, such as the use of heavy 

equipment to build fuel breaks, could 

inadvertently affect paleontological resources.

4.13.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected under any 

Alternative.

4.13.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action) 

In the Agua Fria National Monument, areas 

open to vehicular access could continue to cause 

inadvertent damage to paleontological resources.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

unmanaged or illegal vehicle use could destroy 

or degrade potential paleontological resources.

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, limiting OHV travel 

and posting directional signing reduces the 

likelihood of inadvertent damage to 

paleontological resources.

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts in the monument would be similar to 

Alternative A, except more restrictions on routes 

may help preserve potential sites.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

limiting vehicular travel to existing routes could 

help preserve paleontological resources by 

reducing the opportunity for inadvertent 

disturbance through OHV travel. Further 

restrictions on routes as dictated by each 

alternative could further reduce potential 

damage.

4.13.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

Currently no areas are allocated for the 

management of wilderness characteristics. As a 

result, no impacts are expected.

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed

Alternative)
Chapter 4

560

In areas allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics, impacts to potential 

paleontological resources would be reduced due 

to restrictions on vehicular access and the desire 

to retain primitive and natural characteristics.

4.14 Impacts on 

Recreation

This section compares the impacts of the 

Alternatives on outdoor recreation through 

changes in the recreation opportunities, settings, 

and access. Changes in the settings would result 

in a corresponding change in the opportunity to 

achieve a desired recreation experience in the 

proposed setting.

The escalating population of the Phoenix 

metropolitan area, coupled with the growth of 

other communities in the region would continue 

to increase recreation use of public lands. Visits 

to public lands are expected to grow at an annual 

percentage at least equal to the population 

growth of the region whether or not BLM 

provides more opportunities, facilities, or 

management presence.

One of the key issues affecting recreation 

activities is the fast growth of recreational OHV 

use area. The projected increase of more 

than two million people in Maricopa and 

Yavapai Counties is expected to substantially 

increase recreation use, especially OHV use, in 

the planning areas.

Agua Fria National Monument was not created 

for purposes of recreation, and recreation should 

be considered a secondary use that is permitted 

as long as the monument Purpose and 

Significance are protected.

Cultural resources in the monument would be 

managed according to three levels of public use 

for different recreation experiences (different 

levels described in detail in the Cultural 

Resources section).

Specific areas and sites for each level are 

described for the Alternatives.

4.14.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Existing recreation opportunities and 

experiences in the suitable WSR corridors and 

wilderness areas would be retained. Increasing 

motorized and non-motorized recreation on 

public lands surrounding existing wilderness 

could contribute to increased wilderness 

visitation. Potentially growing numbers of nonmotorized users could impair solitude 

opportunities and contribute to trailing and 

campsite use impacts along the edge and in the 

interior of the wilderness areas.

Alternative B

Designating Bloody Basin Road as a back 

country byway could affect the recreation setting 

along the byway by increasing traffic and 

interaction among visitors. Opportunities for 

more primitive recreational experiences in the 

suitable WSR corridor near the river crossing 

could be diminished. The interpretive elements 

of the byway would increase visitor awareness, 

appreciation, and enjoyment of the national 

monument‘s natural and cultural resources.

Designating a back country byway along 

Constellation Mine Road would have impacts 

similar to the same designation on Bloody Basin 

Road, although the Constellation Mine Road 

does not cross suitable wild and scenic river.

The Constellation Mine Back Country Byway 

crosses an area of high OHV use with many 

miles of trails. Conflicts with OHV users could 

increase because of the increased traffic on the 

byway. Conflicts between byway users and 

large OHV groups could diminish the scenic 

drive experience. Moreover, there could be an 

increased potential for accidents at OHV trails 

and byway intersections because drivers might 

not expect multiple trail crossings in the area.

The interpretive components would increase 
Chapter 4

561

visitor awareness, appreciation, and 

enjoyment of the mining history of the 

Wickenburg area.

Designating Tule Creek ACEC would reduce 

opportunities for vehicular recreation by closing 

the fenced area to motor vehicles. The total 

route closure would amount to 1.1 miles.

The route closure would reduce conflicts among 

user types and enhance the opportunity for nonmotorized activities in a more natural setting.

Eliminating grazing would also help retain a 

more natural setting for recreation and reduce 

conflicts with livestock. Interpretive elements 

would increase appreciation of the natural and 

cultural resources under protection in the ACEC.

In wilderness areas, establishing criteria to 

manage larger group activities would protect 

wilderness values, most notably enhancing 

opportunities for solitude sought by wilderness 

visitors. Future opportunities for commercial 

and vending operations in wilderness areas 

would be forgone as these permits would be 

prohibited.

Alternative C

Designating the back country byways would 

have impacts similar to those under Alternative 

B.

ACEC designation would have little to no 

impacts within Agua Fria National Monument

due to the coverage of the National Monument 

Proclamation.

The effects from ACEC designations on 

recreation within Agua Fria National Monument

are described in the National Monument 

Proclamation. Route closures could limit access 

for some visitors in the Silver Creek area and 

diminish vehicular recreation opportunities. To 

protect the resources in the Silver Creek area, 

routes can be closed without ACEC designation 

and these impacts could be realized anyway.

Designating Tule Creek ACEC would have 

impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

Designating ACECs in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, comprising 

55,710 acres, would improve opportunities for 

primitive recreation experiences like hiking, 

hunting, wildlife observation, camping, and 

sightseeing in natural settings. Non-motorized 

trail systems could be enhanced in some 

areas, and conflicts among different user types 

would be reduced.

In the Harquahala Mountains ONA the ACEC 

designation would prevent the future 

development of recreation sites and decrease 

opportunities to experience the area in a more 

developed setting. The lack of facilities for 

parking, staging, and interpretation would 

disperse motorized activities.

Impacts to wilderness areas due to group size 

and permit restrictions would be the same as in 

Alternative B.

Alternative D

Alternative D proposes no back country byways, 

and no impacts are expected.

Designating ACECs would have impacts similar 

to those described for Alternative C, except that 

the ACECs would encompass 354,690.

Impacts to wilderness areas due to group size 

and permit restrictions would be the same as in 

Alternative B.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Bloody Basin Road and the Constellation Mine 

Road/Buckhorn Road would not be designated 

as back country byways. 

Designating Tule Creek ACEC would be the 

same as Alternative B.

ACEC designations would create the same 

impacts as in Alternative C.

Outstanding opportunities for backpacking, 

hiking, camping, hunting, and nature study 
Chapter 4

562

would be maintained in the five designated 

wilderness areas.

Impacts to wilderness areas due to group size 

and permit restrictions would be the same as in 

Alternative B.

4.14.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In the Bradshaw Harquahala Planning Area, 

disposal of lands in the Upper Agua Fria River 

basin, the Table Mesa area, and Skull Valley 

north of Highway 89 would reduce or eliminate 

opportunities for recreation and could affect the 

Black Canyon Trail. The lands in the Table 

Mesa area and in Skull Valley generally 

experience moderate to high OHV use. Those 

uses could potentially relocate to other areas.

The higher concentration of activities in those 

areas could diminish the recreation experience 

for some users because of the higher numbers of 

people encountered. The Upper Agua Fria River 

basin lands support multiple recreation activities 

and provide some valuable linkages to Forest 

Service land to the east and west.

Utility development can affect recreation by 

increasing or reducing access to areas and 

primarily through changing the characteristics of 

the landscape by creating new roads or other 

facilities. These new facilities can change the 

types of recreation opportunities and settings an 

area might provide and the kinds of experiences 

and benefits recreationists would derive. 

Possible mitigations could include, but not be 

limited to: avoiding above ground facilities or 

long term surface modifications in areas where a 

primitive or undeveloped setting is desired; 

modifying the appearance of above ground 

facilities to blend into the natural landscape; 

utilize facilities or surface modifications to 

create other types of recreation experiences to 

replace the ones that might be lost.

Alternative B

Non-Federal lands in Agua Fria National 

Monument would be considered for acquisition 

if they become available from a willing seller. 

BLM would also consider acquiring adjacent 

non-Federal lands that enhance Agua Fria 

National Monument‘s values, if these lands 

become available from a willing seller. These 

two actions would affect recreation opportunities 

by improving access.

Impacts to the utility corridor in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to 

Alternative A, except that the corridor would be 

narrowed.

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those under Alternative 

A, except that lands in the Table Mesa area 

would be retained and recreation on those lands 

could continue. Acquiring lands that meet the 

criteria described for Chapter 2 could enhance 

opportunities for recreation by increasing 

connectivity and manageability of public lands.

No impacts are expected until specific parcels 

are selected for acquisition.

Alternative C

Lands-related impacts to Agua Fria National 

Monument would be similar to those described 

for Alternative B, except that eliminating the 

utility corridor would remove any potential 

impacts from future utility proposals.

Due to the two methods that have been 

developed for determining which lands are 

potentially suitable for disposal through sale or 

exchange (2.4.2.1.1) differing impacts are 

expected under each.

No impacts are expected to result from disposing 

of lands selected under the first set of disposal 

criteria because parcels are small and generally

in the Phoenix urban area. Because recreation 

on these parcels should be minimal, relocating 

the activities should not affect the relocation 

areas.
Chapter 4

563

The 49,100 acres selected for disposal by the 

second set of criteria mainly consist of scattered 

lands disconnected from other BLM-managed 

lands. Disposal of some parcels might disrupt 

the connectivity of the route network if the new 

owner closes routes across the property.

Because the lands are isolated from other BLMmanaged lands, BLM could not develop new 

routes to mitigate the losses. Camping, target 

shooting, rock hounding, and other site-specific 

recreation could be affected for some users if 

such sites are on the disposed lands and are later 

closed. Loss of these lands would not appear to 

affect other recreation activities (e.g. wildlife 

viewing, most other motorized and nonmotorized activities).

Impacts from utility and transportation corridors 

would be similar to those under Alternative A.

Alternative D

Lands-related impacts to Agua Fria National 

Monument would be similar to those described 

for Alternative C. Because no lands would be 

disposed in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, no impacts are expected. Impacts from 

corridors would be similar to those under 

Alternative A.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Lands-related impacts to Agua Fria National 

Monument would be similar to those described 

for Alternative B.

No impacts are expected to result from disposing 

of lands in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area because parcels are small, isolated, or 

generally in the Phoenix urban area. Because 

recreation on these parcels is generally minimal, 

relocating the activities to other BLM-managed 

lands is not expected to have noticeable impacts.

Impacts from other lands actions on recreation 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B. An important recreation feature 

that may be affected by utility development is 

the Black Canyon Trail. Approximately 80 

acres of corridor set aside by the Secretary of 

Interior in 1969 could be affected by the corridor 

location in the Proposed Alternative. As with 

other resources, allocation of a utility corridor 

itself has no affect on the trail. However, utility 

development in the vicinity of the trail could 

affect access to the trail, the views from the trail, 

recreation settings along the trail, and with 

those, the potential benefits derived by trail 

users. Possible mitigations for these impacts 

would be the same as those described above 

under Alternative A.

4.14.3 From Management of 

Soil, Water, and Air 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Maintaining or improving water quality and 

providing for surface and subsurface flows in 

Agua Fria National Monument would benefit 

recreation. Both wildlife viewing and waterrelated recreation would be enhanced. 

Managing air quality could affect recreation 

through restrictions to protect Agua Fria 

National Monument's values. The potential for 

excessive dust might result in rescheduling or 

redirecting recreation events authorized through 

SRPs.

Managing air quality could affect certain 

recreational activities, such as large OHV events 

and motorized competitive races, by restricting 

or rescheduling events so that they comply with 

county air quality rules. Failure to meet fugitive 

dust and PM10 emission standards could cause 

public lands to be closed for OHV riding, 

permitted events, and staging for OHV and 

equestrian or organized group activities.

Facilities and developments would have to be 

designed and installed with dust abatement 

features.
Chapter 4

564

4.14.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Modifying fencing to allow wildlife movement 

would improve wildlife viewing opportunities 

by enhancing the ability of wildlife to move 

throughout Agua Fria National Monument.

Developing new water sources could also 

enhance viewing opportunities by strengthening 

wildlife populations and providing areas where 

wildlife would congregate.

Use of prescribed burns for habitat enhancement 

could temporarily impair recreational 

experiences by disturbing the visual setting and 

by closing burn areas to recreation. Habitat 

improvements could enhance wildlife 

populations and viewing opportunities.

Managing Arizona night lizard and Sonoran 

mountain king snake habitat by closing mining 

roads to recreational use could limit 

opportunities for recreation in habitat areas.

Developing wildlife waters and protecting big 

horn sheep habitat as described for the Lower 

Gila North MFP (BLM 1983) would continue to 

sustain wildlife populations for wildlife viewing 

and hunting.

The Lower Gila North MFP (BLM 1983) limits 

motorized vehicles in desert tortoise, Arizona 

night lizard, and Sonoran mountain king snake 

habitat to existing routes only. This 

management has not been implemented. The 

MFP planning area is considered open to crosscountry travel, and current OHV recreation 

would continue to be allowed.

Alternative B

Impacts in the Agua Fria National Monument 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Managing desert tortoise habitat could reduce 

opportunities for motorized recreation by 

limiting the development of new routes.

Limiting motorized special events to the period 

from October 15 to March 31 in Category I and 

II desert tortoise habitat would limit the potential 

number of events in some locations. Evaluating 

permits for impacts on desert tortoise habitat 

(Map 2-58) could affect opportunities for events 

in otherwise desirable settings if impacts on 

desert tortoise occur in the proposed event 

location. Events might have to be postponed, 

cancelled, or relocated to a less desirable 

location.

Ensuring connectivity of habitat for wildlife 

could affect motorized recreation by closing 

routes that cross sensitive areas or movement 

corridors. Opportunities for wildlife viewing 

could be enhanced because wildlife would be 

able to move through their traditional corridors.

Designation of Harquahala Mountains Wildlife 

Habitat Area (WHA) would protect sensitive 

wildlife habitat and enhance opportunities for 

wildlife viewing by strengthening populations.

Ensuring connectivity of habitat for wildlife 

could affect motorized recreation by closing 

routes that cross sensitive areas or movement 

corridors. Opportunities for wildlife viewing 

could be enhanced because wildlife would be 

able to move through their traditional corridors. 

Alternative C

Limiting routes in pronghorn corridors in Agua 

Fria National Monument could reduce the 

connectivity of the route network and diminish 

the motorized recreation experience of some 

users. Prohibiting the development of 

recreational sites in pronghorn corridors could 

affect recreation opportunities by eliminating 

such facilities as restrooms, parking areas, or 

ramadas, which could enhance the recreation 

experience for some users.

Alternative C would, however, provide more 

areas for visitors to enjoy viewing wildlife and 

experiencing solitude. Wildlife corridor 

concerns were considered as part of the 

evaluation process for designating the route 

network for Alternative C.
Chapter 4

565

Agua Fria National Monument has no developed 

recreational sites except for minimal 

improvements at Badger Springs and in the 

Cordes Lakes area. Prohibiting the development 

of recreational sites in pronghorn corridors 

would eliminate the possibility of such facilities 

as restrooms, parking areas, or ramadas, which 

could enhance the recreation experience of some 

users. Modifying fences to allow wildlife to 

move more freely could enhance wildlife 

viewing opportunities in the national monument.

Prohibiting new fences in the Belmont/Big Horn 

Mountains and Date Creek Mountains WHAs, 

and the Upper Agua Fria River Wildlife Habitat 

Corridor would maintain the current 

connectivity of the route network.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

WHAs to protect wildlife habitat would have the 

same impact on recreation as described in 

Alternative B. Prohibiting construction of new 

routes in the Date Creek Mountains WHA and 

the Upper Agua Fria River Habitat Corridor 

could lessen motorized recreation opportunities 

by preventing maintenance of route connections 

when other routes are closed for resource 

protection. Fragmented route systems could 

diminish the recreational experience for some 

users and possibly lead to an increase in 

unauthorized cross-country travel to connect 

routes.

Impacts from desert tortoise restrictions would 

be the same as those identified in Alternative B.

Alternative D

Impacts from route limitations and development 

of sites for recreation in the pronghorn corridors 

in Agua Fria National Monument would be 

similar to those under Alternative C.

Removing all fences and prohibiting new ones in 

Agua Fria National Monument would maintain 

connectivity in the motorized route system 

developed for Alternative D and enhance the 

natural appearance of the landscape. Wildlife 

viewing could be enhanced because wildlife

could move throughout most of the national 

monument.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

most wildlife management would be 

accomplished through ACEC and 

WHA designation and management. Impacts 

would be the same as those discussed in 

Alternative B and in Section 4.14.1.

Management restrictions for desert tortoises and 

in the Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn Wildlife 

Corridor could limit recreation developments 

and restrict or preclude some recreation 

activities, diminishing the recreation experience 

of some users. Impacts from other desert 

tortoise restrictions would be the same as those 

identified in Alternative B.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Designation of specified pronghorn corridors in 

the monument would have the same impacts as 

described under Alternative C. 

Prohibiting the developing of recreational sites 

in pronghorn corridors could affect recreation 

opportunities by eliminating the possibility of 

such facilities as restrooms, parking areas, or 

ramadas, which could enhance the recreation

experience for some users.

Prohibiting new fences in the Belmont/Big Horn 

Mountains WHA would help maintain the 

current connectivity of the route network.

Closing or limiting vehicle routes in the 

Belmont/Big Horn Mountains WHA, the 

Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn Wildlife 

Corridor, and the Harquahala Mountains and 

Black Butte ACECs would have the same 

impacts as Alternative C.

Prohibiting the building of new routes in WHAs

and ACECs would have similar impacts as 

described in Alternative B.

Impacts from desert tortoise restrictions would 

be the same as those identified in Alternative B.
Chapter 4

566

4.14.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Current conditions would be maintained with no 

significant change in interpretive opportunities.

Two permittees now offer cultural resource tours 

and activities in Agua Fria National Monument, 

but BLM has devised no management procedure 

for controlling the number of permits. More 

permits could lead to allocation and protection 

problems if larger numbers of tours and 

activities visit the same sites. Increased group 

use could also diminish the recreation 

experience of the general user.

The Lower Gila North MFP (BLM 1983) called 

for study plots and inventories to reduce land 

use impacts on cultural resources and to allocate 

sites for scientific use and preservation for future 

use. The study plots have not been established 

and should not restrict recreation at cultural 

sites. Allocation to scientific use or preservation 

would limit certain sites for commercial or

general recreation use.

Alternative B

Potential closures of routes as protective 

measures for sites would affect certain 

recreational activities, especially where such 

activities are influenced by the 

interconnectedness of the route 

network. However, conflicts among user types 

could decline, and opportunities could increase 

for an enhanced sense of solitude and enjoyment 

of cultural resources in a natural setting.

Maintaining signs and developing interpretive 

programs would lead to a better understanding

and appreciation of the sites selected to be open 

to the public. Increased visitation to sites 

resulting from promoting public access could 

affect the interpretive recreational experience by 

(1) increasing interaction with other visitors and 

(2) diminishing the sense of site discovery that 

visitors experience before sites are allocated for 

public access.

Also affecting opportunities for recreation would 

be stipulations on SRPs to limit damage such 

as artifact removal or displacement, and 

requirements for SRP holders to implement 

customer education programs. The recreational 

experience for visitors would be enhanced by 

learning the value of the cultural resources and 

the importance of retaining their integrity and of 

protecting sites for future recreational

opportunities.

Limiting group visits to cultural sites to 

25 persons at a time, could limit opportunities 

for some groups to experience the cultural 

resources at popular sites. Such limitation could 

maintain an enjoyable experience for the public 

by reducing possible overcrowding caused by 

large groups at sites and preserving a more 

natural experience.

Developing public use areas according to the 

various levels of development and use described 

in Cultural Resources in Chapter 2, would 

maintain opportunities for a variety of 

recreational experiences relating to the cultural 

resources in the national monument.

Specifically, sites would have interpretive and 

educational components. Access for multiple 

users (including the disabled) would be 

improved, and sites would be stabilized and 

preserved for future recreational opportunities.

Improving routes and trails would open sites to a 

wider variety of users. Limiting motorized 

access to at least a quarter mile to a half 

mile from sites would limit the opportunities for 

recreation of some users but would also reduce 

conflicts among user types and maintain a nonmotorized setting at the resources.

Educational programs and interpretive signs 

would raise visitor awareness and sensitivity.

Developing areas for Moderate and Low public 

use would enhance the experience of the general 

user by limiting commercial tours and allowing 

increased opportunities for experiencing the 

cultural resources in a natural setting.
Chapter 4

567

Developing five sites for High public use and 

four sites for Moderate public use in the national 

monument would affect recreational 

opportunities involving cultural resources by 

increasing access and education programs on 

16,000 acres. Limiting motorized access would 

reduce some user conflicts at the sites. A 

potential increase in commercial permit use for 

the sites could increase interaction with large 

groups at Low public use sites and diminish the 

recreational experience of some users. Public 

use on 49,100 acres would remain limited, with 

no improvements in access or interpretive 

elements. This lack of improvements would 

allow users to experience the cultural resources 

through discovery.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

developing sites for public use in all eight 

cultural priority areas would increase awareness 

and recreational opportunities for experiencing 

the cultural resources on 316,000 acres 

throughout the planning area. Some user 

conflicts would be reduced through controlling 

access of motorized vehicles. The recreation 

experience of some casual users could be 

lessened by increased interaction with large 

groups at sites authorized for group tours.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument, impacts under 

Alternative C would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, except that one site would be 

allocated to High public use and eight sites 

would be allocated to Moderate public use. The 

total area of public use would be the same.

However, developing fewer sites to High public 

use would decrease the publicity and awareness 

of cultural resources and limit opportunities for 

recreation for some users, especially those with 

mobility challenges. Allocating more sites 

to Moderate public use would increase 

opportunities to experience cultural resources in 

a less developed setting and reduce the potential 

for interaction with large groups.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area four 

priority areas, comprising 276,500 acres would 

be allocated for public use. In these areas 

impacts to recreational opportunities would be 

similar to those under Alternative B. The 

opportunity to experience cultural resources 

through self-discovery would still exist in the 

priority areas not allocated for public use. For 

those areas Alternative C would not provide the 

educational and interpretive 

opportunities provided by Alternative B.

Restricting SRPs to educational tours involving 

site recording or protection could reduce 

recreational and educational opportunities for 

casual.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument no areas or 

sites would be developed for High public use.

Only one site would be developed for Moderate 

public use. Awareness of cultural resources 

would be less under Alternative D than under

Alternatives B and C. Opportunities for 

educational programs, along with the ability to 

experience the resources in a developed setting, 

would be eliminated. Lack of facilities could 

restrict access by certain visitors, especially 

those with mobility challenges. With limits on 

tours and group visits in Moderate public 

use areas, the potential for interaction with large 

groups would be reduced from that under 

Alternatives B and C. The entire national 

monument would be open for experiencing 

cultural resources through self-discovery.

Opportunities for user conflicts would increase, 

especially at popular known sites such as Pueblo 

la Plata and Pueblo Pato, which would not be 

managed for public use.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area two 

priority areas, comprising 134,500 acres, would 

include sites developed for public use. Impacts 

would be similar to those under Alternative B.

Educational and interpretive recreational 

opportunities would be reduced from those 

under Alternative C because fewer sites would 

be allocated to public use. Opportunities for 

self-discovery experiences would increase, as 

would potential conflict among user types.
Chapter 4

568

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts on recreation resources from cultural 

resource management would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B except for the 

following. Potential closing of routes in the

planning areas as a protective measure for sites 

would affect recreational activities, especially 

where such activities are influenced by the 

interconnectedness of the route network. Visitor 

awareness of the cultural resources and of 

recreational opportunities to experience the 

resources through improved access and 

education programs would increase as a result of 

managing cultural resources in the following 

areas in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area:

Black Mesa/Bumble Bee 

Cultural Resource Priority Area 

Black Canyon corridor, Lake 

Pleasant/Agua Fria, 

Wickenburg/Vulture, Weaver/Octave, 

Harquahala, and Galena Gulch 

SCRMAs. 

Varying levels of public use development, 

similar to the levels used in Agua Fria National 

Monument would limit opportunities and access 

for some users. However, the levels would also 

reduce conflicts among user types. Future 

opportunities for recreation would be maintained 

by protecting the resources.

In the monument, impacts under Alternative E

would be similar to Alternative B except that 

two sites would be developed for High public 

use and six sites for Moderate public use. The 

total area of public use would be less than 

Alternative B (12,440 acres). Public use 

limitations on 57,200 acres would increase the 

impacts over what is described in Alternative B. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

developing sites for public use in each cultural 

priority area would increase awareness and 

recreational opportunities for experiencing 

cultural resources. Although some user conflicts 

would be reduced by controlling access of 

motorized vehicles, the recreation experience of 

some casual users could be impaired by 

increased interaction with large groups at sites 

authorized for group tours.

4.14.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected. Although 

including paleontological resources in the 

Cultural Resource Program could increase 

awareness recreation opportunities, no 

paleontological sites are known to exist on 

BLM's land in the planning areas.

4.14.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

The increasing use and intensity of nonpermitted/dispersed general recreation, 

and permitted commercial/organized 

activities, could diminish the recreation 

experience of some users. Furthermore, it 

could alter the recreation setting for many 

activities. The changes in settings could reduce 

opportunities for certain types of activities, such 

as hiking, backpacking, non-motorized camping, 

hunting, and wildlife viewing; especially those 

in primitive or semi-primitive settings.

Current management is reactive; therefore, 

prescriptive actions are implemented to solve 

problems or reduce conflicts as they occur.

Moreover, a lack of proactive management for 

recreation could lead to an overall decline in the 

quality of recreation as measured by recreation 

settings, opportunities, and experiences on 

public lands.

Recreational shooters, equestrians, hikers, 

bicyclists, campers, hunters, OHV users, mining 

clubs, and other recreation users would not be 

directed to areas suitable or compatible for their 

use. The following problems could increase in 
Chapter 4

569

all areas, especially near expanding 

communities:

heavy uses in sensitive areas, 

overcrowding, 

user conflicts, 

adverse effects on adjacent State and 

private lands, and 

resource conflicts. 

Visitor dispersal seeks to minimize visitor 

impacts and social conflicts by distributing 

visitor use to such a large number of sites that no 

site develops any obvious signs of wear. Sites 

that are convenient or easy to access might show 

such signs. Pre-existing sites are more 

convenient, more comfortable, and require less 

work to use. The lack of limiting established 

group sizes could possible affect users because 

they might have forfeit a natural experience 

so large groups can settle in close together; 

which in turn, creates noise, other disturbances, 

or distractions.

Campfires are now allowed at dispersed 

campsites in the monument. Some proliferation 

of fire rings has occurred, though the impact is 

now low. Collection of dead, down, and 

detached woody material is allowed for campfire 

use. Although such fuel is generally scarce, no 

noticeable impact to woody vegetation has yet 

occurred.

Recreational target shooting would be allowed 

throughout Agua Fria National Monument.

Many areas which have experienced high levels 

of such use in the past have been notorious for 

trash accumulation, including large amounts of 

spent shell casings. In addition, as visitation has 

increased, visitors' complaints have escalated 

along with conflicts between shooters and other 

visitors. Under the No Action Alternative these 

conflicts are expected to increase.

Special Recreation Management 

Areas/Recreation Management Zones

The No-Action Alternative would designate no 

Special Recreation Management Areas 

(SRMAs) or Recreation Management Zones 

(RMZs). Recreational mining clubs, OHV 

users, campers and other intensive users would 

not be directed to areas suitable or compatible 

for their use.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

Agua Fria National Monument is closed to 

cross-country motorized travel to protect the 

monument objects; however, existing routes are 

open. Specifically, no impacts are likely to 

occur unless resources are found to be damaged.

Closing OHV routes or activity areas to protect 

resources could limit recreation in some areas, 

but resources would be protected for future 

activities.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

2,240 miles of vehicle routes would remain 

open, and recreation would not be affected.

However, in the western part of the planning 

area that is covered by the Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan (MFP) (BLM 

1983), cross-country travel by some users could 

affect others, by disrupting recreational and 

disturbing recreation settings. Additionally, 

recreation settings would shift over time to more 

motorized settings and opportunities.

Special Recreation Permits

Current conditions would continue. BLM would 

continue to issue SRPs on request in both 

planning areas. Growth in the number of 

permits requested is expected to meet the 

increased demand but could lead to overcrowded 

use areas and conflicts between the public and 

permit holders. In the Agua Fria National 

Monument, this increase could quickly result in 

visitor dissatisfaction as the anticipated impacts 

from the increased use could negatively impact 

the recreational experience expected in a 

national monument. In the BradshawHarquahala planning area, the unlimited growth 

in the number of permits and the subsequent 

increased number of users and related impacts 

would eventually result in unacceptable social 

encounters and impede the quality of 

recreational experience for most users if left 

unmanaged. In some locales such as the Vulture 
Chapter 4

570

Mountains, San Domingo Wash, Hieroglyphic 

Mountains, and Black Canyon corridor, requests 

for permitted commercial and competitive 

events could encumber all or most weekends 

during the peak cool-weather visitor season.

Visitors not engaged in these permitted activities 

could be displaced to other areas or have their 

recreation experiences and expectations 

diminished. With no limits on the number of 

motorized competitive races the number of 

permits could increase to a point where the races 

would overshadow the casual use and organized 

group opportunities in the intensive OHV use 

areas. Consequently, this would result in 

decreasing recreational opportunities and quality 

of experience for the average motorized user. In 

addition, by not confining the use within 

appropriate use areas, visitors who prefer less 

intensive OHV uses and more casual rural 

settings could be displaced as this use moves 

into areas where they do not currently occur.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B Agua Fria National 

Monument‘s Front Country RMZ would 

comprise 57,900 acres and the Back Country 

RMZ 12,700 acres. Managing Agua Fria 

National Monument‘s Back Country RMZ for 

more primitive recreational opportunities would 

retain the semi-primitive setting and benefit 

visitors seeking non-motorized challenge and 

discovery. Activities such as camping would 

remain dispersed, and opportunities for solitude 

would be enhanced because intrusion by 

vehicles would be minimized. In the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area more remote areas 

could retain good to high quality non-motorized 

or primitive recreation opportunities and 

experiences.

Managing the Front Country RMZ for more 

visitor uses would affect opportunities for 

recreation by concentrating popular and more 

intensive uses in areas that can tolerate the 

higher level of use. Concentrating visitors could 

change the recreation setting to one offering a 

less primitive experience because of (1) the 

increased social contact and (2) the required 

management for more visitors. Impacts from 

increased noise, litter, and vehicular use would 

increase in the Front Country RMZ. Access for 

multiple types of activities would be enhanced 

and interpretive and educational opportunities 

would be open to a broad range of visitors.

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument from 

dispersed camping would be similar to those 

under Alternative A describing recreational use 

near explanding communities. However, 

dispersed camping would be restricted near 

some facilities such as developed campgrounds, 

archaeological sites, and water sources. This 

restriction might slightly reduce the number of 

sites for dispersed camping and lead to other 

sites being established by the public. Motorized 

vehicles might pull off the designated road up to 

25 feet. However, this might disturb the 

campers‘ solitude if parked along Bloody Basin 

in a camper unit. Additionally, other vehicles 

passing might create dust and impair visual 

clarity.

In contrast to Alternative A, campfires would be 

allowed at dispersed campsites in the national 

monument with some limitations; for example, 

only in built fire rings in developed 

campgrounds. Collecting dead, down, and 

detached woody material would be allowed for 

campfires at dispersed campsites.

Two 20-unit campgrounds would be developed 

at or near the two major access roads into the 

national monument. The ease of pulling into an 

established campsite with amenities offers 

convenience and security. Being close to other 

campers would enhance security and might also 

affect the social setting. The developed 

campgrounds would create a permanent 

disturbance at the development; however, 

careful site design would reduce the impacts of 

the disturbance to soil, vegetation, and visual 

resources. Developed campgrounds could also 

attract more visitors to the monument, creating 

intensified disturbance to wildlife habitat and 

other resources near the developed 

campgrounds. Camping opportunities in a 

developed campground would increase by 40 

planned sites.
Chapter 4

571

The impacts of recreational target shooting in 

the monument under Alternative B would be 

similar to those under Alternative A, except that 

some areas would be closed for the safety of 

other visitors. Some of the most popular 

shooting sites are within a half mile of now 

popular trailheads. Shooters who use these sites 

(such as the area near the Badger Springs 

trailhead) would be displaced and would have to 

move their use to another location. Whether that 

location might be within the monument 

is unknown.

Prohibiting material collection and paintball 

activities in the monument would affect visitors 

who have traditionally engaged in these 

activities. Nevertheless, this approach would 

maintain the landscape in a natural setting for 

other visitors, especially for cultural resource 

interpretive and educational programs.

Developing connecting route networks for 

hikers, bicycles, OHVs, and equestrians would 

affect recreation opportunities because all types 

of users could enjoy activities consistently, in 

more areas, and with fewer user conflicts.

Alternative B would significantly reduce the 

overall availability of public lands for 

competitive OHV events. Only the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains, San Domingo Wash, 

Vulture Mountains, Table Mesa, and Stanton 

SRMAs would allow such events, and the 

number of events would be limited to 16 

annually. Management actions applied to the 

entire Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

address a variety of recreation concerns, 

including public access, target shooting, special 

recreation permits, organized group activities, 

and firewood collection. These management 

actions would do the following:

reduce impacts on recreation users, 

reduce conflicts between users, 

maintain recreation opportunities and 

settings, and 

attempt to maintain high-quality 

dispersed recreation opportunities over 

the long term. 

Special Recreation Management 

Areas/Recreation Management Zones

Managing 82,690 acres of public land in 

SRMAs for OHV and intensive recreation would 

focus BLM's management efforts, as well 

as allocate some intensive recreation uses to the 

Hieroglyphic Mountain, Table Mesa, Stanton, 

San Domingo Wash, Yarnell, Wickenburg, and 

Vulture Mine SRMAs. BLM would manage 

SRMAs to ensure that specified recreation 

opportunities are maintained over the long term 

and to reduce conflicts between users and other 

resources. Development of staging areas and 

facilities would enhance the recreational 

experience for some users by providing a more 

developed setting.

Alternative B would significantly reduce the 

overall availability of public lands for 

competitive races in comparison to the current 

situation. Only the Hieroglyphic Mountains, San 

Domingo Wash, Vulture Mountains, Table 

Mesa, and Stanton SRMAs would allow races; 

however, the number would be limited to 14 per 

year.

Users interested in intensive motorized and 

group activities would be directed to the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains, Table Mesa, Stanton, 

San Domingo, and Vulture Mine SRMAs. 

Developing staging areas and facilities would 

enhance the recreational experience for these 

permitted uses by providing a compatible area 

for these activities.

Allocating and managing the Yarnell SRMA 

would affect the hang gliding community by 

preserving take-off and landing areas for longterm use. Potential hazards would be prevented 

whenever possible, thereby enhancing the safety 

and overall experience of users.

Managing the North Black Canyon Trail SRMA 

would enhance the non-motorized recreation 

experience in the northern portion of the 

planning area by providing the facilities for trail 

use and assuring long-term access to the trail as 

well as connections to public land to the south 

and Forest Service land to the north and east.
Chapter 4

572

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

The overall effect of route management under 

Alternative B would be to maintain the existing 

recreation settings and opportunities and avoid 

greatly changing or diminishing motorized 

recreation experiences and opportunities 

throughout the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area.

Special Recreation Permits

In Agua Fria National Monument issuing up to 

12 SRPs would represent a four-fold increase 

from the current condition and could affect the 

ability of more visitors to access the monument 

under guided circumstances. The increase could 

also degrade the recreational experience of other 

users by (1) increasing their interaction with 

large groups during many activities and (2) 

diminishing their opportunity to enjoy 

experiences in desired settings.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts regarding the number of SRPs issued 

would be the similar to those described in 

Alternative A. However, in Alternative B the 

number of motorized competitive races would 

be limited to 14 per year. Although this amount 

is nearly five times the amount of races currently 

held in the planning area, annual limits would be 

set for each SRMA which would spread the 

potential number of races throughout the five 

SRMAs allocated for such use. This would 

minimize potential user conflicts in those 

SRMAs and allow diverse OHV opportunities in 

these areas.

However, the allowable limits in this Alternative 

could still potentially double the number of 

competitive races in those management areas 

where races are currently held. Also, it would 

keep other areas open and available for races 

where currently none are held. In these areas, 

casual users could be affected by a diminished 

recreational experience in areas near events.

The contributing factors include; the noise, the 

dust, the limitations and closures of routes, the 

possibility of large numbers of spectators, as 

well as other factors which could further limit 

normal use of area resources which increases 

during the during weekends. Casual users 

might also be displaced from popular areas 

because these areas would be inaccessible or 

unattractive to them during scheduled events. 

On the other hand, the recreation experience of 

some visitors might be enhanced by the 

unexpected opportunity to observe competitive 

events and interact with other visitors.

Limiting competitive, commercial, and 

organized group events to allocated VRM

standards and recreation settings in the planning 

areas could limit the total area open to existing 

events and prevent designating locations for 

some new events.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts would 

be similar those described for Alternative B.

The Front Country RMZ would occupy 

42,000 acres, and the Back Country RMZ would 

occupy 28,200 acres.

Impacts of dispersed camping in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to those 

under Alternative B, except in the Front Country 

RMZ camping would be allowed only at 

designated dispersed sites. Camping on 

established designated sites offers visitors less 

flexibility in choosing a location and encourages 

the repeated use of a limited number of sites.

Designating dispersed sites would ensure that 

campsite location minimizes impacts to soil, 

visual, and biological resources. Sites for 

designation could be selected for their 

characteristics of minimizing disturbance, while 

offering the visitor a quality camping 

experience. Dispersed campsites would no 

longer proliferate in the Front Country RMZ.

Campfires would be allowed at dispersed 

campsites in the monument with some 

limitations; for example, only in built fire rings 

in the developed campground. Collecting dead, 

down, and detached woody material would be 

allowed for campfires at dispersed campsites.

The impacts are expected to be the same as 

under Alternative A.
Chapter 4

573

The impacts of one campground development 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, except there would be 20 fewer 

sites, and visitors would be concentrated in one 

place instead of two.

The impacts of recreational target shooting in 

the national monument would be similar to those 

under Alternative B, except that the entire Front 

Country RMZ would be closed to shooting.

Some of the most popular shooting sites are in 

the Front Country RMZ as delineated by 

Alternative C. Shooters who use these sites 

(such as the area near the Badger Springs 

trailhead) would be displaced and would have to 

move their use to another location. Whether that 

location might be within the monument 

is unknown; however, this use is expected to 

shift off the monument.

Managing the Agua Fria National Monument‘s 

42,000-acre Back Country RMZ and the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala lands managed for 

wilderness characteristics 

together, would offer visitors primitive 

recreational opportunities by retaining semiprimitive landscapes and experiences. Impact 

on users would be the same as described under 

Alternative B, with the exception that larger 

amounts of land are enclosed by these land use 

allocations.

Developing connecting route networks for 

hikers, bicycles, OHVs, and equestrians would 

benefit recreational opportunities by allowing all 

types of users to enjoy activities consistently, in 

more areas, and with fewer conflicts.

Management actions applied to the entire 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would 

address a variety of recreation concerns, 

including public access, target shooting, SRPs, 

organized group activities, and firewood 

collecting. These actions would do the 

following:

reduce impacts on natural and cultural 

resources, 

resolve conflicts among recreation users, 

maintain recreation opportunities and 

settings, 

increase public safety, and 

attempt to maintain dispersed highquality recreation opportunities over the 

long term. 

Special Recreation Management 

Areas/Recreation Management Zones

The impacts of managing SRMAs would be 

similar to those under Alternative B. Providing 

staging and trail areas for multiple recreation 

activities and creating new trails would enhance 

the recreation experience by increasing 

opportunities and reducing user conflicts.

Alternative C would significantly reduce the 

overall availability of public lands for motorized 

competitive races. Only the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains, San Domingo, Vulture Mountains 

and Stanton SRMAs would allow races, and the 

number would be limited to six per year.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

The impacts of OHV management are similar to 

Alternative B.

Special Recreation Permits

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those under Alternative B, 

except no more than six SRPs would be issued.

This figure represents double the number of 

current permits and could diminish recreational 

opportunities for some users.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts regarding the number of SRPs issued 

would be the same as in Alternative 

A, except the number of motorized competitive 

races would be limited to six per year. The 

number of races is still twice as many as the 

number currently held in the planning area 

which is expected to meet the future demands 

of users seeking these competitive speed 

opportunities. As in Alternative B, it would keep 

other areas open and available for races where 

currently none are held, with the exception of no 
Chapter 4

574

races being allowed in the Table Mesa SRMA. 

However, since there has not been a demand for 

this activity in this SRMA to date, no current use 

would be displaced. The annual limits set for 

the Hieroglyphic and Vulture Mountains 

SRMAs would not increase over current 

conditions perhaps not meeting the needs for the 

future increase in races in these areas. This 

would require additional future races to be 

moved to less desirable locations and possibly 

much further away from the Phoenix area. The 

remaining allowable races would be available in 

SRMAs that have been allocated for such use; 

however, these areas may not meet user 

preferences. In contrast, these limits in each 

SRMA would minimize potential user conflicts 

in those areas and allow for more diverse OHV 

opportunities.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, impacts 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, except the Front Country RMZ 

would occupy 1,530 acres and the Back Country 

RMZ would occupy 68,380 acres.

Impacts of dispersed camping in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to those 

under Alternative C, except all dispersed 

camping would be limited to designated 

dispersed sites. Camping on established 

designated sites would (1) give visitors less 

flexibility in choosing a location and (2) would 

encourage the repeated use of a limited number 

of sites. Designating dispersed sites would 

ensure that campsite location minimized impacts 

to soil, visual, biological, cultural, and other 

resources. Sites designated available for 

dispersed camping could be selected for their 

characteristics of minimizing disturbance while 

offering recreation visitors a quality camping 

experience. Proliferating of dispersed campsites 

would be halted throughout the monument.

Designated campsites would have designated 

routes leading to them, thus reducing the 

disturbance of vehicle pull-offs.

Campfires would be allowed at dispersed 

campsites in the monument. Visitors; however, 

could not collect dead, down, and detached 

woody material for campfires. Wood for 

campfires would need to be brought in from 

outside the monument. Denying use of local 

material for campfires would reduce the 

disturbance to woody species near the dispersed 

camping areas. The scarcity of these species and 

the desire to return the national monument 

to desert grassland (thereby making woody 

species even scarcer) makes the impact of this 

action slight.

Alternative D would prohibit target 

shooting throughout the monument. Shooters 

who use sites within the monument would be 

displaced to sites outside the monument.

Most of the Agua Fria National Monument 

would be managed under Back Country RMZ 

prescriptions. About 211,840 acres in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would 

be managed to maintain natural and nonmotorized recreational settings to assure the 

continued availability of areas offering mainly 

outstanding primitive recreation and solitude 

opportunities. Limiting and reducing current 

levels of motorized access would impede the 

ability of motorized recreational users to travel 

some secondary routes, washes, single-track 

cattle paths, and little-used tertiary routes in 

these nine localities.

Special Recreation Management 

Areas/Recreation Management Zones

The total area of SRMAs and RMZs in this 

Alternative is 56,240 acres, of which would be 

managed for motorized activities. Alternative D

would phase out motorized uses in Hieroglyphic 

Mountain SRMA over the planning period.

Eventually, Alternative D would gradually 

manage public lands in the southern part of the 

Castle Hot Spring MU to non-motorized uses to 

be more compatible with the expected urban 

growth in the unit. Reducing the area open to 

motorized activities, especially competitive and 

organized events, would force the activities to 

move to other areas. Because most visitors are 

from the two adjacent counties, new locations in 

the planning area are likely to be established.
Chapter 4

575

Motorized activities at these new 

locations could increase user conflicts with other 

recreation and alter the recreation setting for 

some activities. Moreover, Alternative D

would only allow two competitive races; both 

races would be confined to the Vulture 

Mountains SRMA.

The impacts of managing SRMAs would be 

similar to those under Alternative B. Prohibiting 

races would slightly lower the number of 

permits in the SRMAs/RMZs where races 

are allowed in other alternatives, subsequently 

requiring less intensive management and 

monitoring in these SRMAs/RMZs. Providing 

staging and trail areas for multiple recreational 

activities and creating new trails would enhance 

the recreational experience through increased 

opportunities and reduced user conflicts.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

The impacts of OHV management are similar to 

Alternative B.

Special Recreation Permits

Issuing no SRPs in Agua Fria National 

Monument would affect the availability of 

certain recreational experiences for some users 

and could reduce the ability of disabled visitors 

to experience the monument‘s resources and 

activities. Eliminating SRPs for conducting 

guided tours would affect visitors who rely on 

this conveyance to experience the national 

monument and interact with others. Eliminating 

commercial activities would affect recreational 

opportunities of other users by eliminating the 

potential for interaction with large groups, 

especially in highly popular areas.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts regarding the number of SRPs issued 

would be the same as in the Alternative A,

except limiting the number of allowable races in 

this Alternative to two, is less than the current 

situation of three races per year. However, the 

most critical impact would be that no races 

would be allowed in the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains SRMA which has accommodated 

this use since the mid 1990‘s. This would be a 

severe negative impact to motorized racing 

enthusiasts by not only moving the only 

remaining race location much further away from 

Phoenix, but limiting the racing experience to 

one SRMA that has less diverse routes available 

for such use. Racing opportunities and diverse 

challenges offered these enthusiasts would be 

lost, and this demand would no longer be met.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Dispersed camping in Agua Fria National 

Monument under Alternative E would be the 

same as for under Alternative B. Impacts from 

vehicles engaged in dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those under Alternative 

D relative to the size of the Back Country RMZ.

Campfires would be allowed at dispersed 

campsites in the monument with some 

limitations. Collecting dead, down, and 

detached woody material would be allowed for 

campfires at dispersed campsites. The impacts 

are expected to be the same as under Alternative 

A.

Under Alternative E target shooting not 

involving hunting would be prohibited 

throughout the monument. Impacts would be the 

same as described under Alternative D.

Management actions apply to the entire 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

Special Recreation Management 

Areas/Recreation Management Zones

Managing 384,510 acres of public land in 

SRMAs/RMZs would focus BLM's management 

and also allocate intensive recreation uses to the 

following SRMA and associated RMZs: 

Black Canyon SRMA,

Castle Hot Springs SRMA, 

Hassayampa SRMA, 

Hieroglyphic Mountains RMZ, 

Table Mesa RMZ, 

Stanton RMZ, 

San Domingo Wash RMZ, 
Chapter 4

576

Yarnell RMZ, 

Wickenburg Community RMZ, and 

Vulture Mine RMZ.

BLM would manage these areas to ensure that

specified recreation opportunities are maintained 

over the long term and to resolve conflicts 

between users and other resources. Developing 

staging areas and facilities would enhance the 

recreational experience for some users by 

providing a more developed setting.

Recreationists interested in intensive motorized 

and group activities would be directed to the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains, Table Mesa, Stanton, 

San Domingo, and Vulture Mine RMZs.

Motorized events and commercial activities 

would be entertained at all levels up to potential 

carrying capacities. These carrying capacities 

would be determined by Adaptive Management 

principles through site-specific analysis.

Developing staging areas and facilities would 

enhance the recreational experience for these 

permitted uses by providing compatible areas for 

these activities.

The overall availability of public lands for 

motorized competitive races would be reduced 

from the current management situation. Only the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains, San Domingo, Vulture 

Mountains and Stanton SRMAs would allow 

motorized races, and the number would be 

limited to eight per year.

The allocation and management of the Yarnell 

SRMA would have the same impacts as those 

described under Alternative B.

Managing the North Black Canyon Trail RMZ 

would have the same impacts as those described 

under Alternative B.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

The impacts of OHV management are similar to 

Alternative B.

Special Recreation Permits

Impacts in the national monument would be the 

same as described in Alternative A. This would 

allow people/groups to enjoy the monument in a 

responsible fashion.

Impacts for the Proposed Alternative are nearly 

the same as those identified in Alternative C. It 

would keep other areas open and available for 

races where currently none are held. In these 

areas the only difference is the limit for the 

Vulture Mountains RMZ would be increased 

to four per year. This would double the number 

of races currently held in the RMZ and is 

expected to meet the future demand for the area.

However, the recreational experience for casual 

users, most notably the casual use miners, could 

be affected due to the temporary unavailability 

of routes and the increased crowds during the 

race events. Users might also be displaced from 

the main camping areas because these areas 

would be either inaccessible or unattractive to 

them during these events. On the other hand, the 

recreation experience of some visitors and OHV 

enthusiasts might be enhanced by the 

unexpected opportunity to observe competitive 

events and interact with other visitors. 

4.14.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts are expected.

Alternative B

In the monument, managing the 12,700 acres of 

Back Country RMZ and 300 acres of Passage 

RMZ as VRM Class II is consistent with 

preserving the primitive recreational 

opportunities intended for the zones. Managing 

the Front Country RMZ as Class III would allow 

recreational activities such as OHV use and 

improvements such as interpretive facilities and 

parking areas on 57,900 acres but might create 

visual impacts that could detract 

from recreational experiences.
Chapter 4

577

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

managing the lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics as VRM Class II 

would affect recreation by retaining the current 

physical setting of 56,040 acres and enhancing 

the primitive recreational experience. The 

improvements at the proposed trailhead in lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics at the staging areas in the 

Harquahala Mountains would be required to 

meet design criteria to integrate the color, line, 

form, and texture of the facilities with the 

surrounding landscape.

Alternative C

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those under Alternative B except 

that the Front Country RMZ managed as VRM 

Class III would be reduced to 42,000 acres and 

the Back Country and Passage RMZs managed 

for VRM Class II would increase to 28,200 

acres.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

107,843 acres of lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics would be managed as 

VRM Class II and would affect recreational 

opportunities similarly to Alternative B.

Managing Sheep Mountain ONA ACEC as 

VRM Class I would enhance the visual setting 

by maintaining 4,270 acres with minimal visual 

impacts from any proposed projects.

Alternative D

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those under Alternative B, except 

that the Front Country RMZ managed for VRM 

Class III would be reduced to 1,530 acres and 

the Back Country and Passage RMZs managed 

for VRM Class II would be increased to 69,370 

acres.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, except that 140,235 acres of lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics and 98,500 acres in ONA ACECs 

would be managed as Class I. Such 

management would enhance the visual 

landscape by maintaining the areas with minimal 

to no visual impacts from any proposed 

developments.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those under Alternative B, except 

that VRM Class III in the Front Country RMZ 

would be 67,279 acres, 59,000 acres of VRM 

Class II would be managed in the Back Country 

and Passage RMZs. These allocations would 

maintain the natural appearance of the 

monument landscapes while meeting other 

resource management objectives.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative B except that 55,480 acres of lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

would be managed as VRM Class II. This 

management would benefit recreation by 

maintaining the areas with little visual impact 

from proposed developments, which would 

maintain or enhance the landscape's natural 

appearance and open space value, while meeting 

other resource management objectives.

4.14.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

As recreation use increases, conflicts with 

livestock grazing and operators would likely 

increase. Impacts to recreation could include 

lack of access for recreation activities as 

livestock operators close their private lands to 

reduce conflicts and vandalism. This lack of 

access would contribute to (1) a loss of 

recreation areas on public land due to a lack of 

access and (2) a reduction in route network 

connectivity. Some visitors would be bothered 

by waste, cattle trailing, trampled vegetation, 

and denuded areas near fences and facilities.
Chapter 4

578

Alternative B

Limiting grazing in Agua Fria National 

Monument riparian areas to the winter season 

(November 1 to March 1) would degrade the 

recreational experience, especially in the Back 

Country RMZ. The primitive recreational 

experience would be enhanced for the summer 

season because of reduced interaction with 

livestock. However, because of high summer 

temperatures, winter is the season when most 

people visit the monument. Encounters between 

visitors and livestock during winter would 

increase in riparian areas. Fencing and physical 

control measures required to keep livestock out 

of the riparian areas could detract from the 

visual setting of primitive landscapes and 

diminish the recreational experience.

Fewer potential conflicts with livestock could 

also occur in the Front Country RMZ during 

summer, but the fencing and physical control 

improvements could disrupt the vehicular route 

network, restrict accessibility for people with 

disabilities, and diminish the recreation 

experience for those users. Improved riparian 

conditions would enhance the recreation setting 

for hunting, nature study, and wildlife and bird 

watching.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

riparian impacts would be similar to those in 

Agua Fria National Monument. Improved 

vegetation conditions would improve the 

recreation setting for hunting, nature study, and 

wildlife and bird watching. Some visitors would 

be bothered by waste, cattle trailing, denuded 

areas, livestock facilities, and trampled 

vegetation in riparian and upland areas. Others 

visitors would not notice.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument the permanent 

removal of livestock from the riparian area 

would eliminate potential conflicts with cattle 

and enhance the primitive and nonprimitive 

recreational experience in those areas. Fencing 

and physical controls of livestock would have 

impacts similar to those under Alternative B. 

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those under Alternative 

B.

Alternative D

Opportunities for recreation on public lands 

in both planning areas would benefit from the 

end of grazing. The potential for conflicts with 

livestock would be eliminated. Both motorized 

and primitive recreation experiences could 

improve as recreation settings become free of 

livestock facilities, cow waste, denuded areas, 

trampled vegetation, and the evidence of

trailing. Access to some public lands could be 

lost if ranchers sell their private property. The 

number of areas where ranchers have 

traditionally permitted public access across 

private land could decline, making some public 

land inaccessible, particularity around Castle 

Hot Springs and Hieroglyphic Mountain, areas 

notable for interspersed private ranch and BLMmanaged lands.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts are expected to be similar to those 

described for Alternative B.

4.14.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Expected increases in visitor use in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area could lead 

to increased conflicts with mining. Mining in 

popular, high-use recreational areas would 

diminish opportunities for recreation and 

increase recreation in other areas as users seek 

new locations for activities. Mining in 

previously undisturbed areas would reduce 

opportunities for primitive recreation and change 

the setting to a more developed landscape.

The Lower Gila North MFP (BLM 1983) 

prevents ―segregation‖ of minerals for 

withdrawal and keeps the planning area covered 

by the plan open to all mineral resource 
Chapter 4

579

development. Because the potential for leasable 

and locatable minerals is very low, most impacts 

would result from developing saleable minerals. 

Designated wilderness areas and Agua Fria 

National Monument, an area of 167,720 acres, 

are closed to mineral material disposal.

Alternative B

In addition to designated wilderness areas and 

Agua Fria National Monument, closing lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

and ACECs to mineral material disposal would 

improve recreational opportunities and settings 

on 56,680 acres. The critical physical setting 

would be retained, and opportunities for more 

primitive recreation would be enhanced.

Because of very low potential, there would be no 

impacts from leasable minerals management and 

few impacts from locatable minerals 

management. Managing lands open to minerals 

to VRM Class III or IV could affect recreational 

experiences in adjacent areas. Mineral 

development would be more visible in the 

landscape and could alter the recreational 

experience of some visitors by introducing 

human-caused elements to the landscape.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative B except that closures to mineral 

material disposal would include 163,220 acres.

Minerals projects would be managed to the 

VRM class for which they were inventoried.

Visual settings would be better 

maintained because mining projects would be 

consistent with viewshed management 

objectives.

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative B except that 480,864 acres would 

be closed to mineral material disposal. Closures 

would ensure the retaining of recreation 

opportunities in undisturbed natural settings over 

the largest area under any of the alternatives.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, except that mineral material 

disposal closures are limited to Tule Creek and 

reconveyed riparian areas.

4.14.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A current conditions would be 

maintained. Prescribed burns would affect the 

availability of recreation activities in Agua Fria 

National Monument because some areas would 

be closed during planned burning. The 

enhanced habitat and general landscape setting 

gained through the burns would benefit 

recreational experiences by improving visual 

settings and possibly increasing wildlife 

abundance for viewing and hunting.

Visitors generally do not view burned areas--

caused either by prescribed or natural ignition--

as attractive settings for recreation. These users 

would be displaced for varying lengths of time 

from burned landscapes and would probably go 

to other nearby unburned areas. The burned 

localities would provide transient opportunities 

to interpret the role of natural and prescribed 

fires in the landscape.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative A, except that natural fire starts 

would be allowed to burn in the prescribed burn 

areas. This practice could increase opportunities 

for fires to start during each season because only 

planned, human-set fires are now allowed to 

burn. More fire starts could increase disruptions 

to recreation by increasing the instances of area 

closures.
Chapter 4

580

4.14.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected

4.14.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action) 

OHV and other mechanized users would not be 

directed to routes or areas suitable or compatible 

for their use. Heavy OHV uses in sensitive 

areas, overcrowding, user conflicts, adverse 

effects on adjacent State and private lands, 

and resource conflicts could increase in all areas, 

especially near expanding communities:

Motorized route-based recreation opportunities 

currently available would be generally 

unchanged. Most existing routes would remain 

open within the Agua Fria National Monument, 

but the monument would remain closed to crosscountry motorized travel. No closures would be 

anticipated unless resources are found to be 

damaged. Closing OHV routes or activity areas 

to protect monument resources could limit 

motorized recreation in some areas.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

2,240 miles of vehicle routes would remain 

open, and recreation would not be affected. As a 

result of increasing motorized and mechanized 

travel, some users could affect others by 

disrupting recreational and disturbing recreation 

settings. Recreation settings would shift over 

time to more motorized settings and 

opportunities. Immediately effective upon 

signing of this plan, restricting travel to 

currently inventoried routes could impact people 

using bicycles in a cross country manner. 

Vehicle use is currently limited to existing roads 

and trails, so most people would experience no 

impact to their experience. After the signing and 

public education through the creation of current 

inventory maps, it is likely that an increased 

number of citations will be issued to drivers not 

staying on inventoried routes. Designating 

routes within 5 years of plan completion would 

limit the number of places the public could use 

motorized and mechanized vehicles. 

Conversely, improvements to the overall 

network usefulness and ease of use might offset 

such impacts.

Alternative B

134 miles, or 76.5 percent, of routes would 

remain open to vehicular travel in Agua Fria 

National Monument. The route system would 

enhance opportunities for motorized recreation 

by creating loop trails, which would allow 

connected touring, provide for an increase in 

access, and offer extended recreational 

opportunities. About five miles of new routes 

would be developed to bypass private property 

and maintain the connectivity of the route 

system. The route system would close 37 miles 

of existing routes and could diminish 

opportunities for motorized recreation in some 

areas. Users of these routes would be displaced 

to other areas within and outside the monument.

Limiting all mechanized vehicles to inventoried 

routes before completing the route designation 

process (i.e. within 5 years of plan approval) 

would eliminate cross-country OHV travel 

throughout the planning area. According to the 

AGFD Off-Highway Vehicle Strategic Plan

(AGFD 1998), cross-country travel accounts 

for five percent of OHV activities. Accordingly, 

this limitation would not affect most OHV 

users. Cross-country travel would also be 

prohibited for game retrieval, potentially 

diminishing or eliminating hunting 

opportunities.

Restricting all motorized and non-motorized 

vehicles to existing routes would not affect 

current activities but would prevent developing 

new routes to expand the recreational 

experience. Allowing cross-country travel only 

for non-motorized, wheeled game carriers (small 

two-wheeled carts for transporting game) could 

affect the recreational experience for some 
Chapter 4

581

hunters by limiting their opportunities to hunt in 

areas where retrieval of game would require 

travel over long distances.

Connecting route networks would be developed 

for hikers, bicycles, OHVs, and equestrians 

enhance recreation experiences and 

opportunities with fewer user conflicts. 

Developing connecting route networks for 

hikers, bicycles, OHVs, and equestrians would 

affect recreation opportunities because all types 

of users could enjoy activities consistently, in 

more areas, and with fewer user conflicts.

Users interested in intensive motorized trail 

activities would be directed to the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains, Table Mesa, Stanton, San Domingo, 

and Vulture Mine SRMAs.

Managing the North Black Canyon Trail SRMA 

would enhance the non-motorized recreation 

experience in the northern portion of the 

planning area.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument 123 miles, or 

69.7 percent, of routes would remain open to 

vehicular travel. The route system developed 

under Alternative C would create loop trails for 

motorized touring and add new routes to bypass 

private property. About six miles of new routes 

would be developed and would affect recreation 

opportunities by maintaining route connectivity 

in the event of closures across private land. The 

route system would close 48 miles of existing 

routes and could diminish opportunities for 

motorized recreation in some areas. 

Developing connecting route networks would 

have the same impacts as Alternative B. 

Alternative D 

In Agua Fria National Monument 48 miles, or 

27.8 percent, of routes would remain open to 

vehicular travel. The route system under 

Alternative D was developed mainly for 

resource protection and would not add new 

routes. Opportunities for motorized recreation 

would be limited, and loop trails would not be 

developed. The route system would 

close 123 miles of existing routes and could 

diminish opportunities for motorized recreation 

and public access in some areas. Opportunities 

for non-motorized recreation would be enhanced 

throughout the monument. There would be 

more opportunity to experience solitude and 

natural landscape settings. 

Impacts from route limitations and development 

of sites for recreation in the pronghorn corridors 

in Agua Fria National Monument are similar to 

those under Alternative C. 

The impacts of route designations on 

recreational opportunities in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be similar to 

those under Alternative B. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative) 

The route network in the monument under the 

Proposed Alternative would retain 94 miles of 

existing route.

About 12 miles of primary roadways exist in 

Agua Fria National Monument. These include 

Bloody Basin Road, which leads visitors 

through the national monument‘s heart, and the 

Badger Springs exit of Interstate 17, a road that 

leads visitors to a trailhead. Beyond the primary 

road network, 88 miles of secondary and tertiary 

roads would be designated as open. Closing 52

miles of route in pronghorn corridors and other 

habitat in the national monument could affect 

the connectivity of the route network and 

diminish the motorized recreation experience of 

some users. The closure would also increase the 

area in which visitors could have a semiprimitive non-motorized recreation experience.

About 41 percent of routes in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be closed, limiting 

vehicle-based hunting; camping; and cultural, 

scenic, and wildlife viewing opportunities.

Limiting all mechanized vehicles to inventoried 

routes before completion of the route 

designation process (i.e. within five years of 

plan approval) would eliminate cross-country 
Chapter 4

582

OHV travel throughout the planning area.

According to the AGFD Off-Highway Vehicle 

Strategic Plan (AGFD 1998), cross-country 

travel accounts for five percent of 

activities. Accordingly, this limitation would 

not affect most OHV users. Cross-country 

travel would also be prohibited for game 

retrieval, potentially diminishing or eliminating 

hunting opportunities for some hunters. 

Developing connecting route networks for 

hikers, bicycles, OHVs, and equestrians would 

benefit recreational opportunities because all 

types of users could enjoy activities consistently, 

in more areas, and with fewer interruptions. 

Once completed, the Black Canyon Trail from 

the Carefree Highway to north of Highway 69 

would become a major trail of regional 

significance for mountain bikers, equestrians, 

and hikers. Moreover, the trail would link the 

communities of the Black Canyon corridor and 

the north boundary of the Phoenix-Peoria 

metropolis. 

Recreationists interested in intensive motorized 

and group activities would be directed to the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains, Table Mesa, Stanton, 

San Domingo, and Vulture Mine RMZs.

Managing the North Black Canyon Trail RMZ 

would enhance the non-motorized recreation 

experience in the northern portion of the 

planning area by providing the facilities for trail 

use and assuring long-term access to the trail as 

well as connections to public land to the south 

and Forest Service land to the north and east. 

4.14.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A no areas would be managed 

specifically to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. Existing primitive recreation 

opportunities would probably be maintained in 

Agua Fria National Monument due to the 

management guidelines defined by the 

proclamation (Appendix A).

In some areas of the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area opportunities for primitive and 

non-motorized types of recreation would likely 

decline or become more fragmented over the life 

of the plan due to increasing motorized 

recreation and land use authorizations. Lands 

with semi-primitive non-motorized recreation 

settings and opportunities could decline in 

number and area. Wilderness characteristics 

would not greatly change over the life of the 

plan in the more remote parts of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area.

Alternative B

In the Agua Fria National Monument, no 

impacts are expected.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

56,040 acres of land would be managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. Designation 

of these areas would impede the ability of 

motorized recreational users to access washes, 

single-track cattle paths, and little-used tertiary 

routes in these areas. Motorized recreationists 

would be displaced and forced to travel to 

nearby areas and routes offering motorized 

opportunities. Additional camping and off-road 

driving impacts on soils and vegetation would 

accrue along these periphery areas and routes, 

impacting scenery. More crowded motorized 

routes would make the driving experience less 

solitary and more interactive with more 

encounters with other motorized users. The 

number of social contacts between motorized 

users would reduce the quality of dispersed 

recreational experiences for some visitors.

Non-motorized users would benefit from the 

limitation on vehicles in areas designated to 

manage wilderness characteristics by being able 

to recreate in a more natural setting. This would 

assure the maintenance and availability of areas 

offering mainly outstanding primitive 

recreational and solitude opportunities. 
Chapter 4

583

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument no impacts are 

expected.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning impacts 

would be the same as Alternative B except that 

107,843 acres of land would be managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. This 

increased number of acres could create more 

displacement of motorized recreationists than 

Alternative B. Designation of a larger amount of 

area to manage for wilderness characteristics 

would provide non-motorized users 

more recreational opportunities than Alternative 

B.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, no impacts 

are expected, allocation of 53 percent of the area 

for management of wilderness characteristics 

would provide non-motorized users with 37,571 

acres potentially managed to maintain 

naturalness and outstanding solitude and 

primitive recreational opportunities. Motorized 

users would be displaced by route limitations 

and closures prescribed by Transportation and 

Public Access Section 2.5.1.8 and Map 2-60. 

The impacts of managing lands in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics would be similar to 

those under Alternative B and C, except that the 

total area of public lands affected would 

be 102,664 acres. Alternative D would 

designate some of the lands identified to 

maintain wilderness characteristics described in 

Alternatives B and C as ACECs. Impacts for 

ACECs are described in the Special Area 

Designations Section 4.6.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument allocation of 

about 29 percent of the area for management of 

wilderness characteristics would provide nonmotorized users with 20,900 acres potentially 

managed to maintain naturalness and 

outstanding solitude and primitive recreational 

opportunities. Motorized users would be 

displaced by route limitations and closures 

prescribed by Transportation and Public Access 

Section 2.6.1.9 and Map 2-76.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area impacts would be the same as Alternative 

B except that 67,279 acres of land would be 

managed to maintain wilderness characteristics.

This increased number of acres could create 

more displacement of vehicle-based 

recreationists than Alternative B, while 

providing areas more suitable to non-motorized

recreationists. 

Designation of a larger amount of area to 

manage for wilderness characteristics would 

provide non-motorized users more recreational 

opportunities than Alternative B, but fewer 

opportunities than proposed in Alternatives C

and D.

4.15 Impacts on 

Visual Resource 

Management

Analytical 

Assumptions/Data Summary

BLM evaluates impacts on visual and scenic 

resources on a case-by-case basis when 

considering land use authorizations. The RMP 

would establish VRM classes from the inventory 

developed during the planning process. The 

basic descriptions of the class objectives are 

outlined below; the results of the inventory 

are shown in Map 3-7. 

VRM Class I Objective: The objective 

of this class is to preserve the existing 

character of the landscape. This class 

provides for natural ecological changes, 

but it does not preclude very limited 

management activity. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape 

should be very low and must not attract 

attention. 
Chapter 4

584

o Generally, the impact of 

implementing VRM Class I is 

that the scenic character of those 

lands are preserved as viewed 

from the key observation points 

selected when any management 

activity is proposed. In the long 

term, the aesthetics of VRM 

Class I landscapes are 

maintained as natural views. 

VRM Class II Objective: The objective 

of this class is to retain the existing 

character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape 

should be low. Management activities 

might be seen, but should not attract the 

attention of the casual observer. Any 

changes must repeat the basic elements 

of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. 

o VRM Class II does not provide 

quite the level of protection to 

visual landscapes as Class I. 

The usual affect of Class II is to 

maintain visual landscapes in a 

natural appearance. But, since 

management activities can be 

seen in this standard - although 

they would not be allowed to 

attract attention - the character 

of visual landscapes could 

degrade over time. 

VRM Class III Objective: The objective 

of this class is to partially retain the 

existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be moderate. 

Management activities might attract 

attention but should not dominate the 

view of the casual observer. Changes 

should repeat the basic elements found 

in the predominant natural features of 

the characteristic landscape. 

o VRM Class III allows 

management activities to be 

visible and they could attract 

attention of casual observers, 

though they shouldn‘t dominate 

the view from the selected key 

observation points. This Class 

allows continuation of existing 

and development of new needed 

activities, such as utility lines, 

mineral material sales, and other 

activities with visible surface 

disturbance. The long term 

affect on the visual landscape is 

generally a degradation of its 

natural appearance.

VRM Class IV Objectives: The 

objective of this class is to provide for 

management activities which require 

major modifications of the existing 

character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape 

can be high. These management 

activities might dominate the view and 

be the major focus of viewer 

attention. However, every attempt 

should be made to minimize the impact 

of these activities through careful 

location, minimal disturbance, and 

repeating the basic elements. 

o VRM Class IV is designed to 

allow management activities 

that can result in major 

modifications of the visual 

landscape. The effect of VRM 

Class IV can be a rapid and 

quite large modification to the 

visual landscape from as few as 

one proposal. An example 

could be development of a 

major open pit mine. Yet, even 

within VRM Class IV 

allocations, BLM would 

negotiate with project 

proponents to try to minimize 

the visual intrusion of any 

project proposal.
Chapter 4

585

Table 4-6 shows the area of each VRM class in 

the planning areas as found during the inventory 

and the area of each class for each alternative.

The total area of each class is reported as the 

acres of that class on BLM. The VRM 

inventory process assesses the visual character 

of the entire landscape, but management to meet 

VRM class objectives would apply only to 

BLM-managed lands. When VRM classes are 

in place, visual resource evaluations are 

addressed in the environmental reports prepared 

for each proposed project. These evaluations 

would employ the contrast rating process as 

described by BLM Manual 8430.

4.15.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

In the Agua Fria National Monument the 

nonimpairment standard for suitable Wild and 

Scenic river segments would be managed to 

maintain the current visual character. Proposed 

activities within these corridors would be 

restricted from degrading the character of the 

river corridor from the conditions that made it 

eligible for wild designation. Some 

management activities may be precluded.

In the Larry Canyon and Perry Mesa ACECs, no 

VRM standards were set by previous plans and 

they have been managed to VRM Class III 

standards. These ACECs have little impact on 

VRM because the monument management 

guidance is more restrictive than that of the 

ACECs. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, five 

wilderness areas (totaling 96,820 acres) would 

be managed by policy to VRM Class I 

standards. VRM Class I would allow 

preservation of the scenic landscapes within the 

wilderness areas consistent with management to 

preserve naturalness and areas with few human 

intrusions. The Harquahala Mountain Summit 

Road Back Country Byway has been allocated to 

VRM Class III as a result; it could allow an 

eventual degradation of the visual character by 

allowing visual intrusions into the landscape.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument, management 

of WSR corridors generally prohibits or 

minimizes uses and activities that could affect 

visual resources. Management to protect the 

values for WSR would thus preserve visual 

quality along the river. Designating the Bloody 

Basin Road as a Back Country Byway would 

include the possibility of facilities such as 

vehicle pull outs and information kiosks for 

visitor enjoyment. These would be designed to 

conform to the local visual landscape and to be 

visually pleasing. Impacts from Back Country 

Byway designation are expected to be very low.

The Larry Canyon and Perry Mesa ACEC 

designations would be dropped. Removing 

4-6. VRM Classes by Alternative (BLM acres)

Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

(Proposed)

I 96,820 96,820 100,456 109,570 298,310

II 593,450 437,579 449,022 502,610 340,880

III 162,000 284,720 282,720 260,020 220,790

IV 114,730 98,660 98,660 94,800 107,020
Chapter 4

586

these designations should not affect visual 

resources because the national monument‘s 

current management provides for a higher level 

of protection than ACEC designation, thereby 

preserving the existing scenic quality.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

retaining the Harquahala Mountain Summit 

Road would not affect the existing scenic 

quality. Retaining the visual character of the 

surrounding landscape would be important to 

maintain the current recreation experience 

offered by the scenic route. Wilderness areas 

would remain VRM Class I areas.

Designating Tule Creek ACEC (640 acres) in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area could 

also affect visual resources. Withdrawing the 

ACEC from mineral entry would benefit visual 

resources by limiting the opportunity for mines 

and improvements to alter the visual landscape.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument, impacts of 

managing WSR corridors would be the same as 

for Alternative B. 

Four ACECs (totaling 810 acres) would also be 

designated in Agua Fria National Monument.

These designations could result in actions 

degrading visual resources by altering the 

landscape with fences to eliminate livestock 

grazing. Impacts would also result from closing, 

limiting, or mitigating motorized vehicle routes.

Such actions could improve visual quality by 

minimizing disruptive recreation and restoring 

the natural landscape in some areas.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

impacts of retaining the Harquahala Mountain 

Summit Road would be the same as for 

Alternative B. The five designated wilderness 

areas would not be affected.

Seven ACECs, totaling 55,710 acres, would be 

designated in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area. These designations could result 

in minor management actions. The actions, in 

turn, would slightly affect visual resources by 

altering the landscape with fences (1) to exclude 

livestock and motorized vehicles and (2) to 

protect cultural sites. The following actions 

would help maintain scenic quality by 

minimizing opportunities for disturbances to the 

natural landscape:

prohibiting mineral development (all 

forms of mineral entry or mineral 

material disposal); 

closing, limiting, or mitigating 

motorized vehicle routes that conflict 

with maintenance of wildlife habitat and 

cultural resources; 

not allowing the building of new 

recreational sites; and 

prohibiting construction of grazing 

improvements in certain areas. 

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, impacts of 

managing WSR corridors would be the same as 

for Alternative B. 

Alternative D would designate the Agua Fria 

River Riparian Corridor ACEC in the 

monument. The ACEC would encompass 

13,070 acres and would represent a large 

increase in special area designation over 

Alternatives B and C. Impacts from the ACEC 

management could result from closing, limiting, 

or mitigating motorized vehicle routes that 

conflict with maintenance of riparian and 

wildlife values. These actions could improve 

visual quality by minimizing opportunities for 

disruption, although general management for 

protecting the Purpose and Significance of the 

monument already affords a similar level of 

protection. Acquiring lands along Indian Creek 

could enhance scenic quality by enabling BLM 

to manage newly acquired parcels in accordance 

with proposed VRM standards.Alternative D

would designate the Agua Fria River Riparian 

Corridor ACEC in Agua Fria National 

Monument. The ACEC would encompass 

13,070 acres and would represent a large 

increase in special area designation over 

Alternatives B and C. Impacts from the ACEC 

management could result from closing, limiting, 
Chapter 4

587

or mitigating motorized vehicle routes that 

conflict with maintenance of riparian and 

wildlife values. These actions could improve 

visual quality by minimizing opportunities for 

disruption. But general management for 

protecting the Purpose and Significance of the 

Agua Fria National Monument would afford a 

similar level of protection for the area and would 

limit disruptive activities. Acquiring lands along 

Indian Creek could enhance scenic quality by 

enabling BLM to manage newly acquired 

parcels in accordance with proposed VRM 

standards.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

impacts of retaining the Harquahala Mountain 

Summit Road would be the same as for 

Alternative B. 

Eight ACECs (totaling 205,870 acres) would be 

designated. Impacts on visual resources from 

these ACECs would be similar to those 

described for Alternative C, except that the 

protected area would represent more than a 

threefold increase over the area protected under 

Alternative C.

The Wilderness areas would remain under VRM 

Class I.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument the WSR 

eligibility would be retained for the Agua Fria 

River. Impacts would be the same as described 

for Alternative B except for the exclusion of of 

the Back Country By-way. . In addition, eight 

tributaries of the Agua Fria River are determined 

to be eligible for analysis as potential additions 

to the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

BLM policy requires protection of the 

outstandingly remarkable scenic values along 

Silver, Bishop, Tank, Lousy, and Larry Creeks.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

retaining the Harquahala Mountain Summit 

Road Back Country Byway would have impacts 

similar to those described under Alternative B. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area four 

ACECs (totaling 89,970 acres) would be 

designated. Impacts on visual resources from 

these ACECs would be similar to impacts 

described for Alternative C.

4.15.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument some potential impacts to 

visual resources are expected from lands and 

realty management. Land acquisitions, rightsof-ways and utilities would be evaluated for 

visual resource management under a projectspecific environmental review. Land disposal is 

prohibited by the National Monument 

Proclamation (Appendix A). New utility 

proposals such as power lines or pipelines could

affect the visual character of the landscape by 

the adding facilities and ground-disturbing 

activities. New towers would be built for power 

lines, and pipeline construction would disturb 

the ground along the pipeline route. The 

impacts would generally be limited to the 

western area of the monument where there are 

existing visual impacts from previous utility 

projects developed before the national 

monument‘s designation. 

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area no impacts to visual 

resources are expected from land acquisition.

Acquisitions would be evaluated for visual 

resource management under a project-specific 

environmental review. Land disposals of up to 

54,370 acres could affect visual resources by 

eliminating BLM‘s management control over the 

parcels. Future utility, mining, or development 

projects would no longer be required to conform 

to existing or ―default‖ VRM class standards.

Developing disposed parcels for residential, 

commercial, or recreational uses would diminish 

the open space setting of the remaining adjacent 

public lands.
Chapter 4

588

Aesthetically incompatible or obtrusive projects 

could be introduced onto the public lands by the 

following:

land use authorizations, 

easements, 

supporting access to or use of valid 

existing rights, and 

meeting access and utility needs.

These projects and authorizations could degrade 

or mar the recreation settings, viewsheds, and 

open space qualities of public lands.

Alternative B

In both planning areas visual resources would 

benefit from land acquisitions because newly 

acquired parcels would be inventoried and 

managed according to BLM‘s VRM system.

Land disposal could impair visual resources by 

eliminating BLM‘s management control over the 

disposed parcels.

Adding designated utility corridors could affect 

visual resources by increasing the potential 

installation of utility poles and power lines, as 

well as ground disturbance along pipeline 

routes. Before construction; however, future 

corridor projects would undergo an 

environmental review that would analyze visual 

resources. Narrowing the existing utility 

corridor in Agua Fria National Monument could 

also affect visual resources by confining new 

utilities to areas already visually affected by 

existing utilities, thereby retaining undisturbed 

visual landscapes. A corresponding expansion 

of the corridor one mile west would potentially 

extend utility impacts into the Bumble Bee area 

and to sites visible from the Sunset Point Scenic 

Overlook but allow flexibility in alignment to 

reduce visual impacts.

Adding communication infrastructure could 

impair visual resources by altering the visual 

landscape. Before construction; however, future 

telecommunication infrastructure projects would 

undergo environmental review that would 

analyze impacts on visual resources. Requiring 

projects to be designed in keeping with the 

VRM class in which they occur would minimize 

impacts on the visual landscape.

Impacts of land disposal in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be similar to 

Alternative A, except 58,400 acres have been 

determined to be suitable for disposal.

In response to projected regional transportation 

demand, all highway system routes (interstates, 

U.S. routes, and Arizona State routes) and the 

proposed corridor southwest of Wickenburg are 

designated as transportation corridors in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. The 

proposed Wickenburg Bypass corridor, which 

would mainly cross lands managed for VRM 

Class II level management, would be 

inconsistent with VRM objectives for the area

and would interfere with BLM‘s ability to 

manage this area's visual resources.

Alternative C

Impacts to visual resources from land and realty 

management would be similar to those discussed 

for Alternative B except as described below.

Eliminating the existing utility corridor in Agua 

Fria National Monument could affect visual 

resources by eliminating the possibility of 

installing new utilities. This constraint would 

preserve the existing visual landscape and 

preclude future impacts on the viewshed.

Expansion of the corridor two miles west could 

extend impacts of utility development even 

further into the Bumble Bee area and into the 

line of sight from the Sunset Point Scenic 

Overlook, but may also give enough room 

within the corridor to site any utility so its 

impact was either screened from view or 

minimized.

Impacts of land disposal in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be similar to 

Alternative A, except Alternative C would 

decrease the lands found suitable for disposal to 

49,100 acres, 9,300 acres less than proposed 

under Alternative B.
Chapter 4

589

Impacts to visual resources from transportation 

corridors would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B.

Alternative D

Impacts to visual resources from land and realty 

management actions would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative B except as described 

below.

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument from 

utility corridors would be similar to those under 

Alternative C.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area no 

acreage has been found to be suitable for 

disposal. BLM would retain management of all 

public lands, and projects would be subject to 

design review to ensure compliance and 

consistency with the VRM class objectives 

allocated in Alternative D. BLM would not 

approve inconsistent land use authorizations or 

rights-of-way.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to visual resources from land and realty 

management actions would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative B except as described 

below.

Impacts from utility corridors would be similar 

to Alternative B for the monument and to a 

combination of Alternative B and C for lands 

west of Interstate 17. The boundary of the Black 

Canyon Utility corridor was purposely kept west 

of the rim of Black Mesa so as to minimize the 

potential visibility of future utility developments 

from both Interstate 17 and the Sunset Point 

Rest Area, a popular scenic overlook for the 

area. Though the revised corridor has more 

acreage visible from either I-17 or sunset Point 

than the corridor proposals in Alternatives A, B, 

C, or D, (as calculated using a GIS viewshed 

analysis) the chance to place above ground 

facilities above the rim is eliminated, reducing 

the opportunity to create skylined facilities as 

viewed from either of these locations. In 

addition, more of the proposed corridor is of 

greater distance from Interstate 17 and Sunset 

Point, reducing the overall visibility of any 

utility related facilities from those locations. 

Specific utility project development would 

include mitigations for visual resources which 

could include, but not be limited to: siting to 

reduce visibility from key observation points; 

use of project designs that reduce visibility by 

incorporating colors, textures, lines and other 

characteristics of the natural landscape; and 

reclamation to suitable vegetation in a 

reasonable time.

4.15.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and

E (Proposed Alternative)

Under current management preventing or 

reducing impacts on air quality by developing 

mitigation measures (e.g. dust control and the 

use of best management practices) during 

project planning could benefit visual resources 

by maintaining the local clarity of the visual 

landscape. Managing soil and water resources is 

not expected to affect visual resources.

4.15.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under current management, wildlife habitat 

improvements are designed to minimize visual 

impacts, but outside of Wilderness areas, 

projects are designed to comply with VRM 

Class III standards. Though few projects are 

constructed, compliance with VRM Class III 

could result in steady degradation of visual 

landscapes. The contribution to that from 

biological resources management would be 

negligible.
Chapter 4

590

Alternative B

Impacts on visual resources from the general 

management of biological resources would be 

similar to those described for Alternative A, 

except wildlife related projects would be 

designed to comply with VRM Class I or II 

standards in many places, which 

would minimize visual impacts from those 

projects. Closing routes and prohibiting new 

fences in the Harquahala Mountains WHAs 

(64,220 acres) could benefit visual resources by 

reducing existing visual disruption and 

minimizing future disturbances to the visual 

landscape.

Alternative C

Impacts on visual resources from biological 

resources would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B except that in Agua Fria National 

Monument 39,330 acres of WHAs for pronghorn 

antelope would be allocated. Potential closure 

or mitigation of routes in the WHAs could 

enhance the visual landscape by removing 

existing disturbances.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative B except that the total area of WHAs 

would increase to 156,120 acres.

Alternative D

Impacts to VRM from Biological resource 

management in the monument are the same as 

described for Alternative C.

Impacts on visual resources from biological 

resources would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C except that the Date Creek 

Mountains and Upper Agua Fria River Basin 

WHAs, encompassing 24,290 acres, would also 

be included. Other management for biological 

resources is prescribed in ACECs.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to visual resources from biological 

resources would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C.

4.15.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts are expected.

Alternative B

Implementing physical and administrative 

protection measures to stop, limit, or repair 

damage and vandalism to sites could affect 

visual resources. Protective actions could 

reduce vandalism activities, such as destruction 

of ancient walls, which are detrimental to site 

settings and visual resources. Building fences or 

other barriers could impair visual resources.

Additionally, the following potential 

management actions could affect visual 

resources by altering the visual landscape:

building new visitor facilities (including 

gravel parking areas, restrooms, picnic 

tables, trash receptacle, or benches), and 

route improvements with the addition of 

signs.

In Agua Fria National Monument levels of 

public use determine the level of intensities and 

interpretive development permitted for 

archaeological sites. High public use could 

disturb visual resources by the following:

adding visitor facilities, 

improving routes including sign 

additions, and 

developing a motorized and nonmotorized loop trail system. 

In Agua Fria National Monument, five sites 

would be allocated to High public use for 
Chapter 4

591

cultural resources and could have impacts 

described under Cultural Resources section of 

Management Common to Both Planning Areas:

Pueblo la Plata complex, Badger Springs 

Pueblo, the Arrastre site, Badger Springs rock 

art, and the Rollie site.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area the 

allocation of eight SCRMAs as open to public 

use sites could affect visual resources. Impacts 

could result from building visitor facilities 

(parking areas, restrooms, tables, benches, signs) 

in addition to completing actions to stabilize, 

repair, and maintain sites in good condition 

(including fencing and barriers). Impacts on 

visual resources could also result from 

concentrating visitors in a specific area. Such 

concentrations could cause more ground 

disturbance (e.g. new trails and vehicular routes) 

and lead to increased litter.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument one area

would be allocated to High public use, with two 

sites that could experience impacts similar to 

those described under the Cultural 

Resources section of Management Common to 

Both Planning Areas: Fort Silver and the Pueblo 

la Plata complex. Compared to Alternative B,

there would be a reduction in potential impacts 

associated with the reduced number of areas 

allocated to the High public use level of 

development. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area the 

allocation of four SCRMAs to public use could 

result in actions affecting visual resources.

Compared to Alternative B, there would be a 

reduction in potential impacts associated with 

the reduced number of areas available for 

potential interpretive development and visitor 

use.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument no sites would 

be allocated to High public use. With limited

development to support visitation and site 

interpretation, management of cultural resources 

would have little impact on Visual Resources.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area the 

allocation of two SCRMAs as open to public use 

sites could result in actions affecting visual 

resources. Only the Black Canyon and 

Harquahala Management Units could contain 

sites developed for public visitation. Compared 

to Alternatives B and C, there would be a 

reduction in potential impacts associated with 

the reduced number of areas available for

interpretive development and visitor use.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be would be similar to those in Alternative C.

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be most similar to those in 

Alternative B, except that two SCRMAs would 

be closed to allocating sites to public use. 

4.15.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.15.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument visual resources could 

be impacted by installing signs at national 

monument boundaries and posting other relevant 

information, in addition to disturbances and 

potential damage caused by target shooting.

Under current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area installing more signs 

could degrade visual resources. Such signage 
Chapter 4

592

could lead to localized reductions in visual 

quality, especially in remote and undeveloped 

areas.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument recreational 

activities would be divided into three resource 

management zones: Front Country 

(57,900 acres), Back Country (12,700 acres), 

and Passage (300 acres). In the Front Country 

RMZ maintaining or enhancing both nonmotorized and motorized visitor travel could 

affect visual resources by the following actions:

introducing human facilities into the 

viewshed, 

developing cultural sites, and 

building visitor amenities such as 

developed campgrounds. 

In the Back Country RMZ current conditions 

would be maintained, and no impacts are 

expected.

The Passage RMZ would contain the major 

vehicle routes that traverse across the Back 

Country RMZ. VRM objectives would maintain

the current visual character while providing

limited management activities. Some visitor 

related development could occur, but it would 

not impact the surrounding landscapes that 

would attract attention from observers.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area all 

lands in MUs would be allocated as Extensive 

Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) unless 

superseded by management actions for SRMAs 

or RMZs. Visual resources could be affected by 

management prescriptions for ERMAs. The 

following actions could impact visual 

opportunities by altering visual landscape: 

installing recreation management 

facilities for resource protection, and 

adding visitor facilities such as water, 

toilets, scenic turnouts, interpretive sites, 

kiosks, signage, parking areas, staging 

areas, and trailheads. 

Besides the physical changes from the 

developments themselves, the improvements 

could promote activities and increase 

disturbance in concentrated areas. The 

developments could thus increase visual impacts 

in those areas while leaving other areas less 

disturbed and reducing visual impacts.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

management prescriptions for nine SRMAs 

(149,760 acres of BLM-managed lands) could 

affect visual resources. SRMAs managed to 

develop designated staging/camping areas and 

visitor facilities (parking areas, horse facilities, 

and signs), could affect visual opportunities by 

altering the visual landscape. Commercial and 

motorized competitive events could alter the 

visual landscape by doing the following:

increasing litter, 

disturbing the natural landscape, and 

reducing local visual clarity with 

concentrated dust and vehicle emissions. 

Impacts to visual resources from managing two 

locations where lands are allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics (56,040 acres of 

BLM-managed lands) would be minimal. 

Management would emphasize semi-primitive 

non-motorized with semi-primitive motorized 

settings along boundaries and along routes 

within that allocation.

Motorized commercial and competitive events in 

the Harquahala Mountains could alter the visual 

landscape by reducing local visual clarity. 

Impacts, however, would be minimized by the 

restrictive timeframe for holding events.

Alternative C

Impacts to visual resources from recreation 

management would be similar to those discussed 

for Alternative B, except in Agua Fria National 

Monument, Front Country RMZ would decrease 

to 42,000 acres, Back Country RMZ would 

increase to 28,000 acres and Passage RMZ 

would decrease to 700 acres. 
Chapter 4

593

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except Alternative C would increase the 

allocation of nine SRMAs to 164,780 acres, and 

increase areas allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to seven, totaling 107,843 acres.

Alternative D

Impacts to visual resources from recreation 

management would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, except in Agua Fria National 

Monument where Front Country RMZ would be 

further decreased to 1,530 acres, Back Country 

RMZ would be increased to 68,380 acres, and 

Passage to 990 acres.

Impacts to visual resources in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be similar to 

Alternative B, except BLM would decrease the 

allocation of SRMAs to seven, totaling 56,240 

acres. Areas allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would increase to fifteen, totaling 

102,664 acres.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to visual resources in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to 

Alternative B, except Front Country RMZ would 

increase to 11,900 acres, Back Country RMZ 

would decrease to 57,650 acres, and Passage 

would increase to 1,350 acres.

Impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to Alternative B, except 

BLM would allocate seven SRMAs, increasing 

the acreage to 384,510, and six areas allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics, increasing 

the acreage to 67,279.

4.15.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would maintain current conditions. 

Wilderness areas are Class I and all remaining 

areas are managed by designation or default as 

Class III. The visual landscape is expected to 

gradually decline. VRM Class III could allow 

visual intrusions that are inconsistent with public 

interests. A lack of clear management direction 

for current planning has lead to visual resource 

management being inconsistently applied in the 

analysis of proposed projects, accelerating the 

potential degrading of the aesthetic landscape.

Alternative B

VRM allocations for both areas can be viewed 

on Map 2-15.

Impacts on visual resources from visual resource 

management would occur as VRM class 

standards are implemented and future projects 

are subject to conformance with design 

standards to meet class objectives.

In Agua Fria National Monument all Front 

Country RMZs (57,900 acres) would be 

managed as VRM Class III. All Back Country 

and Passage RMZs (13,000 acres) would be 

managed as VRM Class II.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area VRM Classes would be allocated as 

described below:

The area of Class I lands would be 

96,820 acres. 

The area of Class II lands would 

increase to 486,800 acres. 

The area of Class III lands would 

increase to 284,720 acres. 

The area of Class IV lands would 

decrease to 98,660 acres. 

Establishing VRM management classes 

described above would allow 

management consistent with resource objectives 

described for Alternative B while protecting the 

aesthetic landscape. Proposed projects over the 

life of the plan are expected to create some 

visual intrusions in places where they now don‘t 

exist. Any change to the visual landscape is 

expected to be minimized by the following:
Chapter 4

594

developing VRM management classes, 

applying a consistent approach to 

analyzing new projects, and 

using visually sensitive design 

techniques. 

Alternative C

VRM allocations for both areas can be viewed 

on Map 2-36.

In Agua Fria National Monument visual 

resource impacts would be the same as those 

discussed for Alternative B, except that 

42,000 acres of Front Country RMZ would be 

managed as VRM Class III and 28,900 acres of 

Back Country and Passage RMZs would be 

managed as VRM Class II.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning VRM 

Classes would be allocated as described below:

The area of Class I would be 

109,570 acres. 

The area of Class II would be 502,610 

acres. 

The area of Class III would be 260,020 

acres. 

The area of Class IV would be 94,800 

acres. 

Impacts under Alternative C would be similar to 

those described for Alternative B, except that 

more land would be included in VRM Class II.

This increase in Class II land is expected to 

preserve the existing open, natural landscapes in 

a larger area for the life of the plan.

Alternative D

VRM allocations for both areas can be viewed 

on Map 2-59.

In Agua Fria National Monument visual 

resource impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative B, except that 1,530 

acres of Front Country RMZ would be managed 

as VRM Class III and 68,380 acres of Back 

Country and Passage RMZ would be managed 

as VRM Class II.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area VRM Classes would be allocated as 

described below:

The area of Class I would be 298,310 

acres. 

The area of Class II would be 340,880 

acres. 

The area of Class III would be 220,790 

acres. 

The area of Class IV would be 107,020 

acres. 

The impacts of Alternative D would be similar 

to those described for Alternative C, except that 

the increase of land in VRM Class I would place 

a higher standard for managing potential visual 

intrusions across a larger landscape. Under 

Alternative D preserving broad naturalappearing landscapes is a high priority. The 

extent of the landscape preserved under 

Alternative D would be greater than under 

Alternative C, and the potential for a gradual 

decline of the aesthetic landscape would greatly 

decrease.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

VRM allocations for both areas can be viewed 

on Map 2-75.

In Agua Fria National Monument visual 

resource impacts would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B, except that 

12,440 acres of Front Country RMZ would be 

managed as VRM Class III, and 37,560 acres of 

Back Country and Passage RMZ would be 

managed as VRM Class II, 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area VRM Classes would be allocated as 

described below:

The area of Class I would be 98,820 

acres. 

The area of Class II would be 488,250 

acres. 

The area of Class III would be 278,540 

acres. 
Chapter 4

595

The area of Class IV would be 103,390 

acres. 

The impacts of Alternative E would be similar to 

those described for Alternative C.

4.15.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Installing more fences or livestock 

improvements (cattle guards, water 

developments, and roads needed to access 

improvement sites) on BLM-administered lands 

or adjacent State and private lands could 

contribute to the steady decline of visual quality 

throughout the planning area.

Alternative B

Impacts to visual resources from rangeland 

management would be similar to those discussed 

for Alternative A, except:

Additional fencing requirements to meet 

seasonal riparian area restrictions and fencing 

modifications to facilitate wildlife movement 

could increase the total number of proposed 

livestock control projects. Conformance with 

VRM Classes established in this plan would 

result in project designs that are less visually 

intrusive, reducing the visual impact of new 

projects. Restricting access to riparian areas 

could improve the visual setting in those areas 

by increasing vegetation health and density.

Alternative C

Impacts to visual resources from rangeland 

management would be similar to those described 

under Alternative B. Prohibiting grazing in 

riparian areas could further enhance the visual 

setting by accelerating increases in the health 

and density of vegetation.

Alternative D

Making all livestock allotments unavailable for 

grazing and canceling livestock authorizations in 

the planning areas could affect visual resources.

Unnecessary livestock facilities could be 

removed as funds and workforce allow, reducing 

the visual intrusions of fences, corrals, water 

tanks, and other livestock related facilities.

Prohibiting grazing could also modify the visual 

landscape through increased vegetation health 

and density as utilization of forage decreases.

The elimination of grazing on BLMadministered lands could affect the visual 

landscape through fencing developed on 

adjacent non-Federal lands to control livestock 

from trespassing onto BLM-managed lands and 

through other grazing improvements to meet 

livestock needs that may have been lost from 

BLM-managed lands. In addition, since the 

closure of BLM-managed lands to grazing may 

force ranchers out of business, they may be 

forced to convert their adjacent properties to 

residential or other development, further 

degrading the visual landscapes in the region. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to visual resources from rangeland 

management would be the same as those 

discussed under Alternative B.

4.15.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under current management in Agua Fria 

National Monument only lands encumbered by 

mining claims are open to mining. No activity 

beyond casual use as defined in 43 CFR 3809 

would be allowed without determinations of 

valid existing rights. Therefore, mineral 

development on existing claims would have 

minimal impacts on visual resources because 

of the typical scale of these operations.
Chapter 4

596

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

BLM administers mining on a case-by-case 

basis, but most of the planning area would 

remain open to mineral location and 

development. Mining would alter the existing 

visual landscape by adding surface disturbance, 

facilities for operations, and routes. Localized 

degradation of air quality and visual clarity 

could result from mine emissions and increased 

dust emissions.

The five designated Wilderness areas (96,820 

acres) would continue to be closed to any 

mineral development. In Alternative A, visual 

impacts from the different types of mining 

would be eliminated on the following lands 

(including Wilderness acres):

172,510 acres would be closed to 

development of saleable minerals 

171,680 acres would be closed to 

development of locatable minerals 

171,680 acres would be closed to 

development of leasable minerals 

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to 

visual resources from minerals management 

would be the same as those discussed 

for Alternative A. In the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area minerals management could 

affect visual resources over most of the planning 

area. BLM would attempt to make the mining 

or eventual reclamation requirements consistent 

with the affected VRM class. Alternative B

would protect the visual landscape more than 

would Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw foothills, the area surrounding 

Wickenburg, and south of White Tank Mountain 

Regional Park, a conflict could result from areas 

being managed at a VRM Class II level but

being largely open to mineral 

development. Visual resources could be 

affected by developing new mines and by such 

improvements as roads.

In Alternative B, visual impacts from the 

different types of mining would be eliminated on 

the following lands (including Wilderness 

acres):

224,400 acres would be closed to 

development of saleable minerals 

101,100 acres would be closed to 

development of locatable minerals 

101,100 acres would be closed to 

development of leasable minerals 

Alternative C

Impacts on visual resource management from 

minerals management would be similar to those 

under Alternative B, except visual impacts from 

the different types of mining would be 

eliminated on the following lands (including 

Wilderness acres):

330,940 acres would be closed to 

development of saleable minerals 

188,450 acres would be closed to 

development of locatable minerals 

188,190 acres would be closed to 

development of leasable minerals 

Alternative D

Impacts to visual resource management from 

minerals management would be similar to those 

under Alternative B, except visual impacts from 

the different types of mining would be 

eliminated on the following lands (including 

Wilderness acres):

452,000 acres would be closed to 

development of saleable minerals 

457,664 acres would be closed to 

development of locatable minerals 

464,734 acres would be closed to 

development of leasable minerals 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to VRM from minerals management 

would be similar to those under Alternative B, 

except visual impacts from the different types of 

mining would be eliminated on the following 

lands (including Wilderness acres):
Chapter 4

597

167,720 acres would be closed to 

development of saleable minerals 

171,940 acres would be closed to 

development of locatable minerals 

171,680 acres would be closed to 

development of leasable minerals 

4.15.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Prescribed burning would remove existing 

vegetation and leave blackened woody material 

that would degrade the visual landscape in the 

short term. In addition, any mechanical 

treatment to establish fuel breaks or pretreat 

fuels would also create short term disturbances 

that could degrade visual quality. Plant 

communities in areas where prescribed fire is 

used are fire-adapted. Periodic fires enhance 

habitat health and can slow or prevent the 

invasion of undesired vegetation. Any scars 

from mechanical treatments are reclaimed as 

well as possible to minimize their visual impact.

Long-term improvement of visual resources 

would result from healthier vegetation 

communities.

Wildfires have similar affects to the visual 

landscape as prescribed fires, except the area 

affected is less predictable. In some years fires 

occur in non fire adapted plant communities. In 

those places, the visual disturbance from fires 

lasts longer, potentially affecting the character of 

plant communities for decades.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts to visual resources from fire 

management would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A except that in the monument 

some natural start fires may be allowed to burn 

where they are currently suppressed. In this 

case, the size and frequency of fire related 

impacts may increase for awhile. It would be 

the goal to reestablish natural fire cycles as 

much as possible, resulting in long term fire 

frequency approximately the same as current 

prescribed burn frequency.

4.15.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action) and B

No impacts are expected.

Alternatives C, D and E (Preferred 

Alternative)

Although there are do direct or indirect impacts 

to wild burros from visual resource management 

removing all burros from the Harquahala HA 

has a potential to minimally affect visual 

resources. A small increase in vegetation cover 

could occur as a result of decreased utilization 

from burros. Given the relatively small impacts 

to the area within the Harquahala Management 

Unit from the existing transient burro herd this 

increase in vegetation could essentially be 

discounted.

4.15.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

New roads and routes authorized or pioneered in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area could 

eventually create varying levels of visual 

disturbances in the planning area. Roads cause 

long-term soil and vegetation damage which 

would impact visual resources over both the 

short and long-term. Impacts would be most 

significant on lands proposed for consideration 

as major highway corridors, especially in the 

Vulture Mine area, Hassayampa Plains, and the 

Hieroglyphic Mountains.

There would be no impacts within the Agua Fria 

National Monument since the lands are under 

special protection provided by the proclamation 

(Appendix A).
Chapter 4

598

Alternative B

A wide range of impacts from none to 

adverse are anticipated from management of 

travel, travel management. Small transportation 

projects would be mitigated and consistent to the 

appropriate VRM classes. Impacts would be 

most substantial on lands proposed for 

consideration as major highway corridors, 

especially in the Vulture Mine area, Hassayampa 

Plains, and the Hieroglyphic Mountains.

There would be no impacts within the Agua Fria 

National Monument. Visual impacts to the 

public lands, overall, would be less than 

presented under Alternative A.

There would be visual impacts from proposed 

developments, but overall the alternative would 

mostly maintain or enhance the appearance of 

the public land landscapes and its open space 

values. Visual resources would degrade over 

time in some areas from reasonably projected 

levels of road, highway and utility development.

The most substantial visual impacts projected 

would accrue from county, State and Federal 

highway projects, including the Wickenburg 

Bypass, the NAFTA Highway, Highway 74, and 

other realignments of county and State roads.

Alternative C

The impacts are similar to those in Alternative B.

Alternative D

Far less adverse impacts are anticipated 

from management of travel management under 

Alternative D due to the lands allocated as VRM 

Class I and Class II areas. All visual impacts 

would be mitigated and consistent to the 

appropriate VRM classes. VRM allocations 

would maintain the natural appearance of the 

monument landscapes while meeting other 

resource management objectives. In the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area impacts 

would be greatly reduced than those considered 

under Alternatives B and C. There would be 

little to no visual impacts from small scale 

transportation and travel developments. As 

described in Alternative B, there could be visual 

impacts from major county, State and Federal 

highway projects. Overall, Allocated VRM 

classes would maintain or enhance the 

appearance of the public land landscapes and 

open space value, while meeting other resource 

management objectives.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative B and projects would be installed 

mostly consistent with VRM objectives. 

4.15.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

No areas are under consideration for 

management of wilderness characteristics.

Therefore, there are no impacts on visual 

resources.

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed 

Alternative)

Visual and scenic resource conditions would be 

maintained, enhanced, and additionally 

protected within landscapes allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. Light 

pollution could be less, and dark skies would 

be effectively maintained.
Chapter 4

599

4.16 Impacts on 

Rangeland 

Management

4.16.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Grazing is prohibited in Larry Canyon ACEC, 

which is located entirely in a steep canyon that is 

inaccessible to cattle. Livestock exclusion on 

the small acreage of the ACEC has a negligible 

effect on the total amount of Animal Unit 

Months (AUMs) of forage available for 

livestock grazing in Agua Fria National 

Monument.

If suitable WSR segments of the Agua 

Fria River are designated, management actions 

would include seasonally restricting livestock 

grazing to winter use only (November 1 to 

March 1). On riparian segments, where grazing 

would be seasonally restricted, riparian 

vegetation and vegetation cover would increase 

from present levels, but a decreased amount of 

forage would be available to livestock. This 

decrease could adversely affect upland livestock 

distribution and increase the utilization of forage 

surrounding livestock waters. Range 

improvements, such as pumping stations to fill 

storage tanks, would continue and would be 

crucial to provide water to upland areas while 

livestock are excluded from the riparian areas.

Without these water sources, forage utilization 

by livestock could increase around 

improvements such as dirt tanks or springs.

There is a minor risk of livestock-vehicle 

collisions increasing along the Harquahala 

Mountain Summit Scenic Road.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument designating 

Bloody Basin Road as a back country byway 

would likely increase traffic and recreation uses 

of the area. Potential for animal-vehicle 

collisions would increase with increased use.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, the 

640-acre Tule Creek ACEC would exclude 

livestock grazing from fenced areas. This 

exclusion would increase riparian vegetation and 

vegetation cover. The small size of the 

enclosure would negligibly decrease AUMs for 

the grazing allotment, and permitted numbers of 

livestock would be unaffected.

Impacts of designating Constellation Mine Road 

as a back country byway would be similar to the 

impacts described for the Harquahala Summit 

Scenic Road in Alternative A.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument, designating 

four new ACECs would prohibit grazing on 

810 acres of riparian habitat. This area 

represents one percent of the 72,305 acres 

allotted to grazing in the monument. Though the 

AUMs lost have not been calculated, riparian 

areas generally produce more forage per acre 

than uplands; therefore, forage lost to grazing 

would likely exceed one percent of total 

available AUMs. Riparian areas are also critical 

livestock water sources. Riparian vegetation and 

vegetation cover would increase with the 

exclusion of livestock grazing in these areas.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

seven ACECs are proposed for designation.

These designations would protect 55,710 acres 

from surface disturbance due to mining or 

materials extraction, which would reduce 

damage to range vegetation and lessen mining 

traffic on the access roads. The possibility of 

livestock injury and mortality from vehicle 

collisions would be lowered.

Impacts on designating the Constellation Mine 

Road as a back country byway would be the 

same as Alternative B, which refers to Alt. A and 

risks of vehicle collisions.
Chapter 4

600

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, designation of 

the 13,070-acre Agua Fria River Riparian 

Corridor ACEC would reduce traffic volume, 

damage to range vegetation, and penetration of 

recreational users into more remote areas. These 

actions would reduce stress to wildlife and 

potential vectoring of noxious weeds.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

eight ACECs comprising 192,800 acres are 

proposed for designation. Vehicle restrictions 

would reduce damage to range vegetation, stress 

to wildlife, and vectoring of noxious weeds.

Restrictions on mining and mineral material 

extraction would result in less damage to of 

range vegetation and reduced volumes of mining 

traffic.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the national monument, there are no ACEC 

proposals under this Alternative. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala, impacts from 

ACECs would be similar to Alternative C, the 

ACEC acreage in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

would then be 89,970 acres.

4.16.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Any future land acquisition in Agua Fria 

National Monument could increase the forage 

available for livestock grazing. Private land 

amounting to 1,444 acres makes up less than two 

percent of the land in the monument. Any 

increase in AUMs would be negligible, and 

grazing authorizations would not be increased to 

reflect the change in ownership. Therefore, no 

impacts are expected from management of lands 

and realty.

New utility construction and maintenance of 

existing utilities might have short-term 

vegetation impacts, although maintenance and 

construction projects have not typically 

impacted the amount of forage for livestock use.

Acquiring privately owned and State-held lands 

would create large blocks of federally managed 

lands in the following areas:

Black Canyon and Lake Pleasant RCAs, 

Cordes Junction, Bumble Bee, and 

Williams Mesa MRMAs, and 

the 4-mile reach of State land along the 

Hassayampa River. 

These blocks would consolidate management 

and help develop healthy native plant 

communities in upland and riparian 

communities. These additions to the BLM's 

land base might increase the total AUMs that 

can be offered through grazing authorizations.

The acreage of the area that might be added is 

unknown since acquisition is generally on a 

willing seller or willing buyer basis and it is 

impossible to predict future opportunities.

Lands available for disposal (54,370 acres) 

through sale, conveyance, or R&PP actions 

might have range improvements of various 

types. These actions typically have a slight 

effect on the total AUMs available for livestock 

grazing. Any land tenure reduction could 

decrease the amount of forage or range 

improvements for livestock. Depending on the 

size of the area disposed of, or number of range 

improvements involved, authorized AUMs 

might need to be adjusted. In this Alternative 

six custodial allotments with public land grazing 

authorizations would be closed; A Bar V, 

Foraker, Rancho Santa Ynez, Kirkland, 

Thompson Lease, Cross Mountain..

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument narrowing the 

utility corridor to existing rights-of-way would 

restrict impacts to vegetation from new utility 

construction. Other lands and realty related 

impacts would be the same as under Alternative 

A.
Chapter 4

601

Construction and maintenance of facilities in 

planned transportation and utility corridors and 

communication sites would have similar impacts 

to those described for Alternative A.

Impacts of land acquisitions would be the same 

as under Alternative A.

The proposed disposal through sale, conveyance, 

or R&PP actions of as much as 58,400 acres 

would reduce the acreage contributing to AUMs 

for allocation under BLM's grazing permits.

Depending on the size of the action in a grazing 

allotment, authorized AUMs might need to be 

adjusted. The total acreage from these actions 

would represent a potential loss of less than six 

percent of the lands available for livestock 

grazing in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area. In this alternative 16 custodial allotments 

with public land grazing authorizations would be 

closed; Texas Gulch, Dewey, Osborne Spring 

Wash, U Cross, Poland Junction, Galena Gulch, 

Chapparal Gulch, Rancho Santa Ynez, 

Whitehead, Oso Ranch, Kirkland, Square M, 

Auza, Cross Mountain., Hackberry Mine, and 

Hackberry Gulch.

Alternative C

Eliminating the Black Canyon utility corridor 

would remove the following potential impacts 

from new utility development:

short-term vegetation disturbance, 

stress to livestock and wildlife, 

animal-vehicle collisions, and 

vectoring of invasive weeds. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, the 

impacts on grazing use from acquiring nonFederal lands would be similar to those 

described under Alternative A. Impacts of the 

land tenure adjustment of 49,100 acres of BLMmanaged Federal lands would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B, except that the 

total acreage from these actions would represent 

a potential loss of five percent of the lands 

available for livestock grazing in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. In this alternative 11

custodial allotments with public land grazing 

authorizations would be closed; Rancho Santa 

Ynez, Foraker, Kirkland, Square M, Whitehead, 

Oso Ranch, Thompson Lease, Grantham 

Brothers Lease, Auza, Cross Mountain, and 

Wellik. 

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument eliminating 

the Black Canyon utility corridor would have 

impacts similar to those described for 

Alternative C, except that impacts to grazing and 

livestock would end with cessation of grazing.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

impacts to grazing and livestock would end with 

the cessation of grazing.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument, narrowing of 

the utility corridor would have impacts similar to 

Alternative B.

Future land acquisition in Agua Fria National 

Monument would have impacts similar to 

Alternative A.

Impacts of proposed land tenure adjustment 

through sale, conveyance, or R&PP actions of as 

much as 38,755 acres of land outside the MUs, 

would be similar to Alternative A. The total 

acreage from these actions would represent a 

potential loss of four percent of the lands 

available for livestock grazing in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. In this Alternative 

nine custodial allotments with public land 

grazing authorizations would be closed; A Bar 

V, Quarter Circle J, W Diamond, Foraker, 

Rancho Santa Ynez, Kirkland, Thompson Lease, 

Cross Moutain, and Wellik

New utility construction and maintenance of 

existing utilities would have similar impacts to 

Alternative A.
Chapter 4

602

4.16.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and 

E (Proposed Alternative)

Implementing activity plans to address soil and 

water issues might require mitigation that would 

affect livestock grazing authorizations. If 

reducing or eliminating livestock grazing is a 

management action used to reach desired 

conditions, the rate of improvement to 

vegetation would be accelerated. These actions 

could result in reduced authorized livestock 

numbers for grazing permits. Promoting 

increased vegetation cover and reduced soil 

erosion should decrease localized emissions of 

naturally occurring windblown fugitive dust.

4.16.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument the use of fire 

as a treatment to improve vegetation 

composition would have short-term impacts to 

vegetation from burning. Fire use would affect 

grazing authorizations by requiring a pasture to 

be rested before and after treatment. Grazing 

use could increase on other nontreated pastures, 

or authorized grazing use could be reduced. The 

fire treatment could result in improved 

vegetation quality, quantity, and increased 

vegetation cover. Limits on the use of 

mechanical vegetation treatments methods; such 

as soft tire tractor mounted chainsaws, could 

increase the potential for invasive species, like 

junipers, to encroach as a result of smaller 

treated areas with hand methods. Water sources 

accessible to livestock and wildlife would 

improve animal distribution and localized 

vegetation impacts from grazing. Modifying 

fencing to allow for wildlife movement 

could improve across pastures and allotments.

These livestock movements would increase the 

time and work for grazing permittees/lessees to 

control livestock. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

changes to livestock season of use for cattle 

during bighorn lambing season, could result in 

increased livestock use in other portions of the 

grazing allotments. Restrictions to construction 

of range improvements including fences or 

water facilities could preclude livestock 

distribution improvement. Reliance on herding 

or other methods for restriction of livestock 

movement may not be as effective in achieving 

vegetative objectives. Restrictions to sheep 

grazing within bighorn sheep habitat could 

adversely affect sheep operators by excluding 

them from grazing allotments. Full exclosure of 

livestock to waters could lead to increased 

livestock use in other portions of grazing 

allotments, negatively impact livestock 

distribution, and may restrict the length of time a 

grazing allotment is authorized for livestock use. 

Construction of small exclosures to monitor 

vegetative changes in various ecological sites is 

not anticipated to impact any grazing 

authorization

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed 

Alternative)

In the national monument, impacts would be 

similar to those described under Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

prohibiting the building of rangeland 

improvements in Browns Canyon and the Inner 

Basin would limit the potential to improve 

current livestock distribution on the Aguila 

allotment. Upland vegetation could improve 

with the lack of livestock grazing in the area.

Closing, limiting, or mitigating motorized 

vehicle routes in the 64,220-acre Harquahala 

Mountain WHA could reduce access to range 

improvements, which would increase costs for 

maintenance. Reduced vehicle access 

could limit the risk of animal collisions, and 

vegetation damage.

Prohibiting domestic sheep and goat grazing 

within 9 miles of occupied desert bighorn sheep 
Chapter 4

603

habitat would affect a portion of the Garcia 

Grazing Allotment (3905), where sheep are 

currently authorized as a class of livestock. In 

order to implement the above decision, the class 

of livestock on the grazing permit would be 

changed to reflect cattle only, for the affected 

portion of the allotment. The Garcia allotment 

consists of two discrete parcels that are 

separated by approximately 8 miles. The 

southern portion of the Garcia allotment, 

approximately 25,600 acres, would continue to 

be authorized to stock cattle year-long. The 

northern parcel could stock cattle year-long 

and/or sheep by ephemeral permit.

Implementing the change in class of livestock 

may adversely affect the livestock operation on 

the Garcia allotment as sheep have been stock 

ephemerally in recent years. The economic 

affect of the change would depend on market 

prices, operating costs, and availability of 

alternate replacement pastures.

4.16.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Implementing protective measures and 

excluding livestock grazing would reduce 

AUMs of forage, which is directly proportional 

to the protected surface area. If the protected 

area contains existing livestock water 

sources, locations, or facilities, they would need 

to be developed outside of these areas to 

maintain a proper distribution of livestock.

Impacts are expected to be negligible.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

For both planning areas, High public 

use development would damage vegetation in 

the immediate area of the site construction.

Depending on the level of public use, 

surrounding vegetation could also be damaged 

by increased vehicular use and visitor 

trampling. In addition, High public 

use development might require excluding 

livestock from large areas in the vicinity of 

developed sites. Though some AUMs might be 

removed from the available forage, the size of 

the areas would be negligible, and livestock 

numbers should not need to be adjusted. If the 

protected areas contain existing livestock water 

sources, more watering locations or facilities 

would need to be developed outside of these 

areas.

Moderate public use impacts to vegetation 

would be minimal, and Low public use impacts 

would even be smaller. Impacts to grazing use 

would be similar to those under Alternative A.

4.16.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.16.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Confining vehicles to designated routes in the 

Multiple Use Resource Areas would reduce the 

potential for vegetation damage by unauthorized 

cross-country OHV travel. Within the 

boundaries of the Phoenix RMP, limiting 

vehicles to existing roads and trails has lead to a 

proliferation of vehicle routes being created by 

users. Use on these routes increases as 

recreational users increase, disturbing more 

vegetation, increasing vandalism of private 

property and range improvements, and 

increasing vehicle-animal encounters. Within 

the boundaries of the Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan, open use for 

vehicles would lead to faster proliferation of 

routes as OHV users are pushed further into the 

few remaining remote areas. As routes 

proliferate and use increases, vegetation 

disturbance and animal-vehicle encounters 

would increase, as would vandalism of range 

improvements.
Chapter 4

604

Activities authorized through Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) are expected to have impacts 

similar to those from use by the general public.

Growth in the number of special use permits 

issued for motorized events and races could 

increase the risk of potential mortality to public 

land users and livestock from collisions with 

vehicles both traveling to and from these events 

and during the event. The permit process allows 

BLM to control where the permittees go and 

places stipulations on how they conduct their 

events or businesses. These factors help to 

reduce the potential affects on disturbance of 

livestock and range resources.

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument, 57,900 acres 

would be allocated as Front Country RMZ, and 

12,700 acres would be allocated as the Back 

Country RMZ. Increased visitation within the 

Front Country could bring increased vehicle 

numbers, which would increase the potential for 

animal-vehicle collisions.

Increased OHV use could increase the vectoring 

of invasive weeds, which could displace native 

vegetation.

For both planning areas; limiting vehicle use to 

designated routes would allow route 

location and network design to address impacts 

to range resources. This could help reduce the 

affects of increasing recreation use on 

vegetation, livestock, and range improvements, 

reducing the potential for upland vegetation 

damage by cross-country OHV travel. The OHV 

travel restriction would decrease the potential 

for animal-vehicle collisions. Other recreation 

impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would include:

Recreational target shooting would be 

prohibited on and other high public use 

areas, resulting in a decreased risk of 

animal stress and mortality. 

Depending on the size of the 

campground/staging areas to be 

developed in support of motorized use, 

authorized livestock grazing might need 

to be adjusted. 

New trails established for pedestrian, 

non-motorized, and motorized use could 

increase the risk of animal stress and 

potential mortality from collisions with 

vehicles. 

Activities authorized through Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) are expected to have impacts 

similar to those in Alternative A.

Alternative C

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B.

The area of Front Country would decrease and 

Back Country would increase, reducing the 

potential for encounters between people and 

livestock. Reductions in route miles may make 

some areas difficult to access, increasing 

operating costs of grazing permittees.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

recreation impacts would be similar to those 

described for the monument and described for 

Alternative B with these additions: 

Restricting target shooting near high-use 

areas would decrease the risk of animal 

stress and mortality. 

Reduced special use permits issued 

motorized race events could reduce the 

risk of disturbance to livestock and 

mortality from collisions with vehicles. 

Activities authorized through Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) are expected to have impacts 

similar to those in Alternative B.

Alternative D

Impacts to rangeland resources, including 

developments that remain and range land 

vegetation would be similar to those described 

under Alternative C.

Impacts to livestock operations would not be 

applicable because grazing ceases in this 

Alternative.
Chapter 4

605

Activities authorized through Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) are expected to have impacts 

similar to those in Alternative B.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the same as Alternative B, except that the 

Front Country RMZ would decrease to 11,900 

acres, the Back Country RMZ would increase to 

57,650 acres, and the Passage RMZ would 

increase to 1,350 acres.

For both planning areas, impacts of confining 

vehicles to designated routes are expected to be 

similar to Alternative C. 

Activities authorized through Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) are expected to have impacts 

similar to those in Alternative B.

4.16.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Alternative D eliminates grazing from the 

planning area, so no impacts are expected from 

VRM management. 

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and E, impacts to 

rangeland resources, particularly grazing 

management, resulting from VRM management 

classes, could include the following:

increased cost of range project 

development to conform to VRM class 

objectives, 

location of some projects in less 

desirable places, or 

possible denial of some projects that 

cannot conform to VRM class 

objectives. 

These impacts are expected to be small.

4.16.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In both planning areas, allowing winter-only 

grazing in riparian areas would increase riparian 

vegetation. Areas where livestock are preventing 

attainment of Proper Functioning Condition 

(PFC) are expected to recover. With the 

seasonal restriction of use, upland vegetation 

utilization could increase, and authorized 

livestock use could be reduced. The need for 

livestock number adjustments would involve a 

number of factors, including the number and 

size of pastures affected, period of use, and 

current livestock numbers.

Implementation of Land Health Standards and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration would 

impose an allotment evaluation process as a step 

to continue grazing permit or lease renewal.

These evaluations would determine where the 

Land Health standards are not being met and 

livestock management actions that may be 

needed to achieve them. It is possible stocking 

rates could be adjusted, pastures may be rested,

or some pastures or allotments may be converted 

to ephemeral use only based on the Special 

Ephemeral Rule. (See Chapter 2, Section

2.7.3.10 for a discussion of the Special 

Ephemeral Rule.)

Alternative B

Impacts would be similar to those described in 

Alternative A.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to those described in 

Alternative A, except:

Prohibiting grazing in riparian areas in Agua 

Fria National Monument would close 25,989 

acres to livestock grazing. This acreage would 

represent a loss of 36 percent of the lands 

available for livestock grazing in the national 

monument. Prohibiting grazing in riparian areas 
Chapter 4

606

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

would potentially close 249,400 acres to 

livestock grazing. This acreage would represent 

a loss of 26 percent of the lands available for 

livestock grazing in this planning area, mainly in 

the Black Canyon, Castle Hot Springs, and 

Hassayampa MUs.

For both planning areas a reduction in 

authorized livestock use could be proportional to 

the land removed from livestock grazing in 

allotments. Riparian areas are also critical 

livestock water sources, and the potential loss in 

availability to livestock grazing from riparian 

closure would be greater than for closing upland 

areas. The loss of water sources in some 

instances could preclude any grazing on upland 

pastures, effectively resulting in no grazing on 

public lands. Riparian vegetation and vegetation 

cover would increase with the excluding of 

livestock grazing in these areas more rapidly 

than under Alternative A.

Alternative D

Making all grazing allotments unavailable for 

livestock use and canceling all permits/leases 

would result in the loss of forage to livestock 

grazing of 13,492 AUMs from Agua Fria 

National Monument and 69,568 AUMs, along 

with any authorized ephemeral livestock use, 

from the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

Should alternative forage locations not be found 

on State, private, or other lands; grazing 

operators on 11 allotments on the national 

monument and 93 allotments in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be out of 

business. Removing unnecessary range 

improvements would increase BLM‘s 

administrative costs until the improvements are 

removed. BLM would bear the cost for longterm maintenance of the remaining 

improvements.

With the cessation of livestock grazing, both 

upland and riparian vegetation would increase in 

amount and quality until it reaches stability with 

environmental factors.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to those in Alternative 

A.

4.16.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Agua Fria National Monument is closed to new 

mineral entry.

Impacts to rangeland resources from mining 

include the potential disruption of livestock 

movement and distribution of use from hauling 

material, from fencing mines, and in the case of 

very large mines, closure of large portions of 

grazing allotments. Mining has been of small 

consequence in the planning area in the last 10 

to 20 years and is expected to continue to have 

negligible impacts to rangeland resources.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

There are no impacts in Agua Fria National 

Monument from minerals management. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

closure to different types of mining would vary 

by Alternative. Even though the area over 

which the mining could occur is large, the actual 

area of impact is expected to be relatively small

and that impact to rangeland management even 

smaller. Only negligible impacts are expected.

4.16.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In both planning areas the use of fire as a 

treatment to improve vegetation composition 

and cover would have short-term impacts to 

vegetation from burning. Prescribed fire would 

also affect grazing authorizations by the 
Chapter 4

607

requiring pastures to be rested before and after 

the treatment. Grazing use could reduce 

or increase on other nontreated pastures. The 

fire treatment could improve vegetation quality 

and quantity and increased vegetation cover.

Fire suppression activities typically impact 

rangeland management by the use of water from 

range improvements. In the event the water is 

not replaced in these developments, livestock 

grazing could potentially be restricted and 

management options may include the removal of 

grazing. Depending on the size of the wildfire 

and the acreage involved that is burned livestock 

grazing may be restricted or precluded for a 

sufficient period of time to allow for regrowth of 

forage species. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In the Agua Fria National Monument some 

naturally ignited fires would be allowed to burn 

if defined prescriptive conditions are being met.

Impacts from fire management would be similar 

to those described for Alternative A.

4.16.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no impacts expected in Agua Fria 

National Monument as burros do not inhabit the 

area.

Current conditions for burros would be 

maintained in the 80,800-acre Lake Pleasant 

HMA. Burros, wildlife, and livestock would 

continue to compete for forage and water at an 

expected constant level due to environmental 

constraints and management control of burro 

numbers (e.g. herd gathers).

If all animals in the Harquahala herd are 

gathered and permanently removed, upland 

vegetation would slightly increase, and the 

riparian area would slightly improve in Browns 

Canyon. Competition with livestock and 

wildlife for water would also decline. Because 

burros use this area only seasonally, impacts 

from their use would vary on a yearly basis. A 

corresponding small decrease in soil erosion 

could be anticipated with the decline in trailing 

of the animals between their forage areas.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed 

Alternative)

Continued management actions in the Lake 

Pleasant HMA and the Harquahala HA over a 

combined area of 237,055 acres would not 

significantly change present use patterns or 

affect rangeland resources or livestock use.

4.16.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action) 

Vehicle limitations in Perry Mesa ACEC have 

reduced the potential for upland vegetation 

damage by unauthorized cross-country OHV 

travel.

Damage to roadside vegetation has increased 

due to unauthorized OHV travel around poorly 

maintained segments of roadway. Decreased 

OHV travel would reduce the potential for 

animal stress. The OHV travel restriction has 

also decreased the potential for animal-vehicle 

collisions.

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed

Alternative)

For Alternatives B, C and E in both planning 

areas, limiting vehicular travel in these same 

areas would reduce damage to upland and 

riparian vegetation, stress to animals, risk of 

animal-vehicle collisions, and potential 

vectoring of noxious weeds.

No impacts under Alternative D, since grazing is 

terminated from the planning areas.
Chapter 4

608

4.16.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no impacts, there are no areas are 

under consideration for management of 

wilderness characteristics.

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed

Alternative)

For Alternatives B, C and E in both planning 

areas, discretionary surface disturbing activities 

not compatible with achieving the DFC for each 

management unit could result in varying degrees 

of impacts to rangeland management. If range 

improvements that would improve livestock 

distribution are prevented from being 

constructed there could be increased soil erosion 

and decreased forage vegetation associated with 

concentrated livestock useNo impacts under 

Alternative D, since grazing is terminated from 

the planning areas.

4.17 Impacts on 

Minerals and Energy 

Resources

This analysis discusses the impacts of the 

Alternatives on developing valuable minerals on 

public lands. In addition to the land surface in 

Federal ownership, this plan addresses lands 

where BLM retains subsurface (mineral) 

rights—an area of 346,300 acres within the 

planning area's boundaries and 181,200 acres to 

the north and east of the planning areas. 

BLM manages three categories of minerals:

leasable minerals: which include oil, 

natural gas, coal, sodium, and 

geothermal resources; 

saleable minerals: also known as 

mineral materials, which include sand 

and gravel, decorative rock, and other 

common minerals; and 

locatable minerals: which include 

precious metals such as gold, silver, 

copper, and some industrial minerals 

such as gypsum and clay. 

Several approaches to mineral leasing are 

available under 43 CFR 3100 to 3500, the 

regulations for issuing mineral leases. The 

options include opening areas to leasing, subject 

to the following:

the terms and conditions of a standard 

lease, 

minor constraints such as seasonal 

restrictions, or 

major constraints such as denying 

surface occupancy. 

For locatable minerals, governed by the 

regulations in 43 CFR 3802, 3715, and 3809, 

and for saleable minerals, according to the 

regulations in 43 CFR 3600, the Alternatives 

determine which areas are to be open to the 

operation of the mineral leasing laws, mining 

laws, and mineral material disposal. In open 

areas, the Alternatives define any area-wide 

terms, conditions, or other special considerations 

needed to protect resources.

LEASABLE MINERALS

Oil and Gas

Background Information and Assumptions

Although the potential for oil and gas leasing is 

low to medium throughout the minerals planning 

area, the potential for leasing is low. The 

potential is somewhat higher in the areas north 

of 35 degrees north latitude.

Oil and gas exploration was active in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area from 1913 

to the 1980s. No oil and gas development has 

occurred on public lands, and no proven reserves 

have been documented. There is now no leasing 
Chapter 4

609

interest. However, areas of moderate oil and gas 

potential do exist (Map 3-14).

The price of crude oil was a significant driving 

force for increased oil and gas exploration in the 

1970s. The 1980s saw active exploration in the 

Basin and Range Physiographic Province of 

Arizona to test the Laramide Overthrust Trend.

There has been no drilling since the 1980s. A 

trend toward increasing exploration is occurring

throughout the United States as the active rig 

count increases with rising crude oil prices.

Thus, there is potential for domestic crude 

demand to stimulate oil and gas exploration in 

the mineral planning area.

The following assumptions were considered 

when evaluating the Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) for oil and gas in the 

decision area:

Oil and gas drilling would increase in 

the next 20 years in response to 

increasing crude oil and gas prices, 

domestic demand, and decreasing 

domestic production. 

Advances in three-dimensional seismic 

acquisition and processing technology 

would improve the resolution of 

subsurface structural and/or stratigraphic 

traps and delineate potential reservoir 

targets. 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development

The RFD for oil and gas in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area estimates that ten 

exploratory wells would be drilled on BLMadministered land in the decision area.

Disturbance to the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area

The extent of land disturbance from exploration 

drilling is estimated from the mean generalized 

impact values presented by the Rocky Mountain 

Federal Leadership Forum (RMFLF 2002). 

Those assumptions are as follows:

The exploration well site would 

occupy 10 acres, and each development 

or production well site would occupy 5 

acres, including roads. 

Pad reclamation would reclaim 50 

percent of the exploration well drill pads 

for the long term. 

Coal Potential

No coal deposits have been reported in the 

minerals planning area.

Geothermal Resources

Background Information and Assumptions

Five low-temperature geothermal resource 

regions are recognized in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. These regions are 

shown as moderate potential areas on Map 3-14. 

There has been no significant development of 

geothermal resources. These lowtemperature resources might be used for smallscale space heating and for resort spas.

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area has no 

geothermal energy leases and no indications for 

future leasing. The absence of geothermal 

leasing probably results from the limited uses 

for low-temperature resources and the great 

expense to explore and develop them.

The following assumptions were considered 

when evaluating the RFD for geothermal energy 

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area:

There would be no leasing interest in the 

next 20 years. 

Drilling costs to explore and develop 

subsurface geothermal energy would be 

comparable to costs for oil and gas 

exploration and would probably be too 

high for the limited revenue that a lowtemperature geothermal energy would 

generate. 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development
Chapter 4

610

The RFD for geothermal energy in the decision 

area expects that no leasing, exploration, or 

development would occur in the next 20 years. 

Costs to develop low-temperature 

geothermal energy are prohibitive compared to 

the potential revenue generation and limited uses 

of those resources.

Disturbance to the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area

No disturbance to public lands from 

geothermal development is foreseeable in the 

decision area during the next 20 years.

Sodium

Five areas of potential sodium exist in the 

planning area's subsurface. There has been no 

significant development of those resources and 

no indications for future leasing and 

development. The absence of sodium leasing in 

the planning area (except in the Luke Basin) is 

probably due to the limited demand for sodium 

and the great expense of exploring and 

developing it. Morton Salt is solution mining 

salt for industrial purposes from the Luke salt 

deposit. BLM has one lease with Morton for 

solution mining on the Luke deposit.

Reasonable Foreseeable Development

The RFD for sodium expects that no more 

leasing, exploration, or development would 

occur in the planning area in the next 20 years. 

Costs to explore and extract by drilling are 

considerable compared to the local demand and 

limited uses of sodium in Arizona.

Disturbance to the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area

No disturbance to public lands is foreseeable 

from sodium development in the decision area in 

the next 20 years.

LOCATABLE MINERALS

Background Information and Assumptions

Mineral districts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area are regions of known occurrences 

of and high potential for locatable metallic and 

non-metallic minerals (Map 3-15). Most of the 

mines have been inactive for many years 

because the cost to mine the commodity exceeds 

the commodity‘s market value. Several smallscale locatable mines now operate in the 

planning area. These mines generally operate on 

a sporadic base, depending on market conditions 

and financial support. These operations focus 

on placer gold, lode gold, and some industrial 

minerals.

The following assumptions were considered 

when evaluating the RFD for locatable minerals 

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area:

There would be three to five new 

small mines per year for the next 20 

years and one to two large operations 

over the next 20 years. There would be 

10 or fewer exploration-level operations 

per year. 

Each new small locatable mineral 

discovery would occupy less than 20 

surface acres, including access.

Exploration would disturb an average 

of 1 to 3 acres. The large mines are 

expected to be gold heap leach, which 

might disturb between 200 and 300 

acres. 

Most mining would be on the 

surface, from recent trends in new mine 

permit applications to BLM. 

The commodity ore would be 

transported by surface road. 

Most of the surface would not be 

reclaimed during the life of the mine. 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development

There would be three to five new small mines 

per year for the next 20 years and one to three 

large mines over the next 20 years. There would 

be 10 or fewer exploration-level operations per 

year. 

Disturbance to the Decision Area
Chapter 4

611

Each new small locatable mineral discovery 

would occupy less than 20 surface acres, 

including access. Exploration on an average 

would disturb 1 to 3 acres. The large mines are 

expected to be gold heap leach, which might 

disturb between 200 and 300 acres.

SALEABLE MINERALS

Background Information and Assumptions

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area has 

many locations for saleable mineral resources.

Known occurrences (quarries and pits), 

prospects, and potential locations for saleable 

material on BLM-administered lands are shown 

on Map 3-16. Those locations have high 

potential for saleable mineral resources because 

they are known to occur. Most of the locations 

are actively used for dimension stone, decorative 

rock, or local construction.

The following assumptions were considered 

when evaluating the RFD for saleable 

minerals in the decision area:

The demand for saleable minerals would 

increase during the next 20 years as 

population increases stimulate the 

building of new roads, structures, and 

infrastructure. 

An estimated 20 new saleable mineral 

pits would be permitted in the next 20 

years. 

New quarry or pit access would require 

new road building because those 

locations are usually sited some distance 

from existing paved roads. 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development

An estimated 20 new saleable mineral pits or 

quarries would be permitted or reactivated in the 

next 20 years. The type and volume of saleable 

minerals disposed are uncertain and would 

depend on the increase in community 

development and construction. The BradshawHarquahala Planning Area now has seven 

decorative rock operations, three sand and gravel 

operations, and three free use permits. The 

average disposal tonnages for three types of 

saleable mineral pits are as follows:

Decorative rock – an average of 33,000 

cubic yards/year/pit for seven active pits 

that average 40 acres per 

contract/permit. 

Sand and gravel – 50,000 cubic 

yards/year/pit from three active pits that 

average 40 acres per contract/permit. 

The free use permits operate 

sporadically, producing borrow sand and 

gravel, averaging less that 10,000 cubic 

yards/year. 

The average annual current sales volume from 

those active BLM's saleable mineral pits in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area is 380,000 

cubic yards. From the estimated average 

disposal of 38,000 cubic yards/year/pit from 

each of 20 new pits during the next 20 years, the 

disposal of 8 to 10 million cubic yards of 

saleable mineral materials is projected.

Disturbance to the Decision Area

Each saleable mineral pit would occupy 40 

acres, which is the average area for the 10 

saleable mineral pits that have active sales 

records. About 400 total acres would be 

disturbed by 20 new pits. Disturbance of the 

land surface would require reclamation at the 

end of the life of the pits.

4.17.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Under current management in Agua Fria 

National Monument, in designated Wilderness 

Areas, and in other areas closed to mineral entry, 

any potential mineral or energy resource that 

might have been opened to development would 

not be developed. Impacts would be long term, 

but minor. The affected areas are closed to 

mineral development; therefore, no exploration 

would occur, and any undiscovered mineral 

resources would remain undiscovered. In these 
Chapter 4

612

areas, the potential is low for leasable minerals, 

moderate for saleable minerals, and varied for 

locatable minerals. No withdrawn areas have a 

high potential for locatable minerals and demand 

for saleable minerals could be met from other 

sources.

Maintaining the acres now withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry and closed to leasable 

and saleable mineral development would 

continue to preclude mineral development.

Current needs and future demands of public 

users would be affected. Table 4-4 shows how 

many acres are closed to the various mining 

types in each Alternative and Table 4-7 shows 

the mineral potential closed by mineral type for 

each alternative.

Alternative B

For Agua Fria National Monument, impacts 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A.

Because Tule Creek ACEC in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be closed to 

mineral leasing, mineral material disposal, and 

recommended for closure under the mining laws, 

any potential minerals or energy resources that 

might have been available for development 

would not be developed. Impacts would be long 

term but are expected to be negligible because of 

the ACEC‘s small size. Valid existing rights 

would be maintained.

If minerals were to be discovered here, they 

would not be developed, resulting in a loss of 

economic contribution to local communities, 

missed opportunity for jobs, missed opportunity 

for adding revenue to the national fund from the 

sale of mineral materials, and missed 

opportunity for extraction of energy resources.

Based on current mineral production and 

demand in the area, the magnitude of impacts 

would be small.

Withdrawals and closures of this area from 

mineral activities would prohibit future mineral 

development and could inhibit the expansion of 

adjacent mining. Management decisions could 

lead to effects on developing mineral and energy 

resources. These effects would affect the local 

economy. The current needs and expected 

future demands of public users and county, 

State, and Federal agencies could be adversely 

affected under this Alternative, although impacts 

are expected to be small.

Alternative C

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the same as those described for Alternative A

despite potential additions to the existing Wild 

and Scenic River designation or proposed 

ACECs.

Impacts would be similar to those described in 

Alternative B, except more area would be closed 

to mining. Any potential mineral or energy 

resources would not be developed in the 

following places in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area because of (1) their withdrawal 

from location under the mining laws and (2) 

closure to leasing and mineral material disposal:

Tule Creek ACEC and

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC. 

The prohibition against mineral materials 

disposal would prevent sale of sand, gravel and 

decorative rock in:

Vulture Mountains Raptor Area ACEC, 

and 

Black Butte ONA ACEC. 

Alternative D

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to 

those described for Alternative C in Agua Fria 

National Monument.

In addition to impacts similar to those described 

for Alternative C in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, except that this Alternative has 

the largest acreage of Special Area 

Designations. Any potential mineral or energy 

resources that might have been open to 

development would not be developed in the 

following areas:
Chapter 4

613

Black Butte ONA ACEC, 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC, 

Vulture Mountains ACEC, and 

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC.

Also, any potential mineral leasing and mineral 

material sales that might have occurred would 

not occur in the Belmont-Big Horn Mountains 

ACEC.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the Agua Fria National Monument, impacts 

under Alternative E would be similar to those 

described under Alternative A.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

acreages closed to various mineral activities is 

similar to those for Alternative A. However, 

DFCs for the four ACECs would make many 

types of mining difficult or cost prohibitive to 

do. Impacts from this alternative are more 

similar to Alternative C.

4.17.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Because the Agua Fria National Monument is 

closed to mineral entry, no impact is expected.

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area acquiring nonFederal mineral estate underlying Federal 

surface holdings in the two RCAs would 

constitute a net gain of potentially developable 

mineral resources.

Reconveyed lands in the Black Canyon Corridor 

are closed to leasing, location, and mineral 

material disposal. These areas have moderate to 

high potential for production of small quantities 

of precious minerals, sand, and gravel. Keeping 

them closed precludes opportunities for mineral 

development and a potential stimulus to the 

economies of Black Canyon City and Cordes 

Lakes.

Small tract lands are also closed to location.

Most are of low potential, but some 

opportunities to develop locatable minerals may 

be forgone. Small tract lands are private 

surface/Federal mineral; therefore, any 

development could cause conflicts with the 

surface owner.

Development of specific utilities can potentially 

interfere with removal of mineral resources. 

Limitations of access to minerals along with the 

physical facilities associated with the utility can 

affect potential mineral extraction. These 

potential conflicts cannot be addressed until 

specific utility projects and/or specific mining 

plans-of-operation are proposed. Methods to 

minimize such conflicts include, but are not 

limited to: avoiding known mining activities 

when locating utility projects; accounting for 

utility facilities in development of mining plansof-operation; and keeping communications open 

between mining and utility companies 

throughout the life of any mining operation.

Alternative B

Impacts in the national monument are the same 

as under Alternative A.

Under management of the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, issuance of rights-of-ways, 

leases, and patents would establish superior 

rights to later mineral development. These 

rights-of-way, leases, and patents could also 

cause temporal or spatial access restrictions.

Segregations and withdraws for leases/patents 

could inhibit mineral development.

Authorization of rights-of-way for facilities such 

as roads, highways, and power lines would 

benefit locatable mineral operations by 

providing access and infrastructure.

Land ownership adjustments could result in 

BLM acquiring or disposing of lands with 

mineral value and could either increase or 

decrease opportunities for development. 

Acquiring more legal access across private or 

other lands would increase opportunities to 

explore and develop areas that might not be 

accessible by other routes.
Chapter 4

614

The opening of reconveyed lands to leasing, 

location, and mineral material disposal could 

provide opportunities for mineral development.

The opening of small tract lands to location 

could provide opportunities to develop locatable 

minerals. Because small tract lands are private 

surface/Federal mineral, any development could 

cause conflicts with the surface owner.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B, except:

Within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, the opening to leasing, location, and 

mineral material disposal of only those 

reconveyed lands with high potential for 

minerals could provide fewer opportunities for 

developing mineral resources than under 

Alternative B.

The opening to location of only those small tract 

lands with high locatable mineral potential 

would provide fewer opportunities for 

developing locatable minerals than would 

Alternative B. There would also be less conflict 

with surface owners.

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to those described in 

Alternative B, except impacts of keeping all 

reconveyed lands and small tract lands closed to 

minerals development would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except small tract lands would remain closed to 

mineral entry, denying opportunities for 

locatable mineral development on those parcels, 

like in Alternative A.

In addition, reconveyed lands would be opened 

to mineral development as in Alternative B, 

except riparian areas would be closed to mineral 

material sales. No impacts are expected 

from this closure.

4.17.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

No impacts are expected in the Agua Fria 

National Monument, since the monument is 

closed to mineral entry.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

managing soil resources requires mitigating 

impacts to topsoil by removing, stockpiling, and 

replacing soil and/or reclamation requirements 

to develop suitable substitutes. This mitigation 

would increase the cost of mining and in some 

cases might make mining uneconomical.

Management objectives seeking to enhance soil 

stability would limit mining in areas with highly 

erodible soils and steep slopes.

Other requirements can be placed on mineral 

operations to protect ground and surface waters 

and to limit impacts on riparian areas. These 

requirements would increase exploration and 

mining costs, potentially making some locations 

uneconomical.

Managing air quality imposes limits on the 

impacts of mining by requiring reduced 

particulates, dust, and emission of hazardous air 

pollutants. As with soil and water requirements, 

air quality requirements would increase the cost 

of mineral exploration and development and 

might make some locations uneconomical.

4.17.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)
Chapter 4

615

There are no impacts expected in the Agua Fria 

National Monument, since the monument is 

closed to mineral entry.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

tortoise habitat restrictions decrease 

opportunities for developing mineral material 

resources, especially boulder sales. Required 

mitigation to eliminate or reduce impacts from 

mining could result in more expenses and longer 

permitting times for developers.

Wildlife stipulations and mitigation would 

increase operating costs and permitting 

timeframes and; to a lesser extent, might require 

relocation of discretionary mineral actions.

Development locations near important wildlife 

habitat might be constrained by the following:

seasonal use restrictions, 

buffer zones, and 

noise controls.

Mineral development is restricted in areas 

known to contain Threatened and 

Endangered (T&E) species. The discovery 

of T&E species on a site might interrupt 

operations. 

4.17.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected in the Agua Fria 

National Monument, since the monument is 

closed to mineral entry.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

increased costs of mineral development and 

delays in the evaluation and approval of 

proposed activities could result from the 

following requirements:

surveying for cultural resources before 

any surface disturbance and 

mitigating impacts on cultural resources 

found before or during surface 

disturbance. 

4.17.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Paleontological resource management is not 

expected to affect minerals and energy 

resources. The discovery of paleontological 

resources during development could increase the 

costs of mineral extraction.

4.17.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected in the Agua Fria 

National Monument, since the monument is 

closed to mineral entry.

Protecting important recreational areas through 

recreation resource allocations such as SRMAs 

might limit potential surface disturbances from 

mineral development. They also limit the area 

where development can occur. Though most of 

these allocations do not close areas to mining, 

compliance with management prescriptions 

would increase development costs, making some 

locations uneconomical to develop.

4.17.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A no VRM classes have been 

established. For the most part, visual resources 

have been managed to Class III. Visual resource 

management is not expected to affect minerals 

and energy resources.
Chapter 4

616

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative) 

While the impacts of VRM Class III and Class 

IV to mining would be similar and comparable 

to what is already required in current 

reclamation standards, Class IV management 

provides added flexibility. VRM Class I or II 

objectives and mandatory compliance with them 

would increase the costs of any potential mineral 

development. In many cases, discretionary 

mineral development and related infrastructure 

would not be compatible with VRM objectives, 

which would result in excluding those forms of 

mineral development. Table 4-6 shows the 

VRM Classes that would be allocated in each 

Alternative.

4.17.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Rangeland management is not expected to 

affect mineral and energy's resources.

4.17.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and

E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to mineral exploration and development 

result from prescriptions intended to manage and 

protect other resources; therefore, no impacts are 

expected.

4.17.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E 

(Proposed Alternative)

Current conditions would be maintained. Fire 

management would be a benefit for mining by 

providing more protection against devastating 

wildfires. Such impacts would generally be 

short-term and would not affect the long-term 

development potential for minerals and energy.

4.17.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Wild horse and burro management under any 

Alternative is not expected to affect minerals 

and energy resources.

4.17.13 From Land Health 

Standards

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Compliance with Land Health Standards would 

require more stringent reclamation standards, 

resulting in higher reclamation and bonding 

costs and a greater delay in bond release.

4.17.14 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts are expected.

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Transportation management requirements 

impose more limits on the number and location 

of roads and require mitigation to reduce 

impacts. Travel management provisions under 

all Alternatives would require authorization to 

drive off-road to access mining claims or 

conduct exploration. Fewer access roads would 

inhibit access for prospecting. Improved road 

conditions leading to improved access would 

facilitate operating existing and potential mines.
Chapter 4

617

4.17.15 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no expected impacts.

Alternatives B and C

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to mineral 

material disposal. This would help preserve the 

natural and primitive characteristics of these 

areas.

Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B

except that in addition to closing mineral 

material disposal, lands allocated for 

management of wilderness characteristics would 

also be closed to mineral and geothermal 

leasing. Under this Alternative lands allocated 

to manage wilderness characteristics would be 

withdrawn from mining laws. Closing these 

areas to mining activities would prevent the 

exploitation of potential resources, but would 

ensure preservation of natural and primitive 

characteristics more than other Alternatives. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

All public lands within the planning area would 

be open to mining activities except 

for legislatively withdrawn areas and other 

withdrawn and segregated areas. As a result 

areas allocated to manage wilderness 

characteristics would have no impact.

4.18 Impacts on Fire 

and Fuel Resources

4.18.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Two ACECs under current management limit 

motorized vehicles. This management is not 

expected to affect wildfire response, 

suppression, or fuel management, because traffic 

restrictions would not apply to either emergency 

or administrative needs.

The one RCA and two MRMAs, within Agua 

Fria National Monument, would be replaced by 

Agua Fria National Monument management.

The area of limited development and access 

would increase. These limitations would affect 

fire by decreasing opportunities for accidental 

human-caused ignition. Also, fewer 

improvements and structures would affect 

suppression.

Wilderness designations could restrict the 

amount and type of fire suppression. A total of 

11 percent (96,820 acres) of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area is wilderness. 

Motorized equipment may be used in wilderness 

in emergency circumstances, guided by MIST 

and minimum tool concepts, making use of the 

least damaging equipment and methods 

consistent with the safety of the public and 

firefighters. 

Alternative B

In Agua Fria National Monument designating 

the Bloody Basin Road Back Country Byway 

would likely increase recreation use of the area 

and would proportionally increase opportunities 

for human-caused ignitions.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

designating the Constellation Mine Road Back 

Country Byway could increase recreation use of 
Chapter 4

618

the area and would proportionally increase 

opportunities for human-caused ignitions.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument designating 

four new ACECs would limit vehicular travel 

and vehicular access to all or portions of the 

ACECs. Alternative C is not expected to have 

any short-term impacts on wildfire response 

suppression or fuel management because the 

traffic restrictions would not apply either to 

emergency or administrative needs.

The Harquahala Mountains ACEC prohibits 

grazing and prohibiting grazing could increase 

fine fuels on the surface. This buildup could 

result in easier ignition and create a more 

continuous fuel bed that could increase the 

spread of fire.

The Vulture Mountains, Black Butte, and Sheep 

Mountain RNA ACECs would increase the area 

of limited development and access. These 

limitations could affect fire by decreasing 

opportunities for accidental human-caused 

ignition. They would also decrease 

improvements and structures that would affect 

suppression.

Alternative D

Impacts to fire under Alternative D would be 

similar to those described under Alternative C.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

The impacts to fire management from Special 

Area Designations would be similar to those 

described for Alternative C.

4.18.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Continued use of the existing utility rights-ofway 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 would affect fire by 

increasing opportunities for accidental humancaused 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 

or fire suppression operations. 

Historically, maintaining and building new 

utility projects have had minor impacts to the

Fire Management Program. Impacts to 

vegetation and increases in fine fuels due to 

ground disturbance would be minimal and short 

term. Increased opportunities for ignition 

during operation and maintenance are expected 

to have negligible effects. Development of 

utilities within a corridor has the potential to 

increase fire occurrence and have both short and 

long term effects to fuels. In the short term, 

construction activities may create fuel breaks 

that could help suppression actions during a 

wildfire. In the long term, construction activities 

can provide disturbed areas and vectors that 

encourage establishment of invasive plant 

species that can increase fire occurrence, even to 

the point of changing fire regimes. Mitigation 

actions could include, but not be limited to: 

restrictions on vehicle parking to minimize 

likelihood of vehicle related fire starts; 

stipulations for metal welding and cutting 

operations that separate the activities from 

possible flammable fuels; construction and 

reclamation planning that minimizes the 

invasion of highly flammable non-native plants.

Impacts from disposal of as much as 

54,370 acres of Federal land outside the MUs 

could include redistributing the overall Federal 
Chapter 4

619

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, land 

disposal could affect both fire suppression and 

fuels conditions. Continued wildland uses and 

management would probably have negligible 

impacts. However, conversion to development 

uses would increase human populations and 

change ignition potential, fire behavior, and risk 

decisions. Additionally, visitor use on adjacent 

public lands could increase which 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 increase the risk of public loss of 

life or property in the event of a 

wildfire. 

Alternative B

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A,

except potential disposal acres would be 58,400.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, 

except potential disposal acres would be 49,100.

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A,

except no acres would be selected for disposal, 

so there would be no impacts related to land 

disposal.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, 

except potential disposal acres would be 38,755.

4.18.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Management objectives include meeting air 

quality standards. Meeting air quality standards 

limits the amount of prescribed burning in both 

planning areas. 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. All prescribed 

fires must be approved by the ADEQ before 

being implemented. State air quality regulations 

enforced by ADEQ meet or exceed Federal 

standards.

Implementing prescribed fire in fire-adapted 

environments and fuel treatments in other highrisk locations would improve watershed 

conditions, increase soil cover, and promote 

proper water flows.

4.18.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In Agua Fria National Monument, fire 

management is affected by the area where 

endangered fish exist. The size of prescribed 

fires is limited by a restriction in the biological 

opinion that not more than half of a watershed 

can be burned during prescribed fires. Also, 

canyon areas cannot be burned. These 

restrictions affect fire by limiting the areas 

where prescribed fires can occur. After a burn, 

fish habitat must be monitored for erosion and 

soil movement into streams, which might affect 

water quality.
Chapter 4

620

The impacts of biological resource management 

on fire suppression would consist of restrictions 

imposed on suppression strategies to protect 

priority habitat and species from disturbance 

from heavy equipment. Examples of these 

restrictions would be (1) prohibiting heavy 

equipment such as dozers in building firelines 

and (2) restricting fire vehicles to existing roads. 

In both planning areas, sensitive and T&E 

species might limit actions on fuel treatments 

(such as what vegetation types can be treated in 

specific areas or at specific times), surface 

disturbances, and fuel treatment methods 

allowed. Seasonal restrictions to protect 

sensitive and T&E species affect fire 

management by not allowing for prescribed 

burning and fire suppression during certain 

times of the year or in some areas such as in 

fawning habitat during pronghorn fawning 

season.

The allocation of WHAs also affects Fire 

Management. They would do the following:

limit or mitigate vehicular access; 

prohibit development of new 

recreational facilities, improvements, 

and structures; and 

reduce public visitation in these 

managed areas. 

These actions are expected to affect fire by 

decreasing the occurrence of human-caused fire 

ignitions and overall suppression costs

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts under Alternative B would be the same 

as under Alternative A, except that some 

closures of vehicle routes that conflict with 

biological resource management might affect 

fire management by (1) reducing visitor use to 

the area and (2) decreasing the opportunity for 

human-caused fire ignitions.

4.18.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) 

are used to protect cultural resources during 

suppression. 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 road 

rights-of-way; 

burning out from existing roads, trails, 

and natural breaks; and 

placing firelines 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:
Chapter 4

621

increasing project costs to protect 

cultural sites; 

spending more time and cost in 

planning, and 

excluding some areas from burning 

because of the presence of cultural 

resources. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument developing 

High and Moderate public use cultural site 

interpretation would affect fire and fuel 

management because of increased recreation use 

of the area and the developing of visitor 

services, including structures. This outcome 

would affect fire management by increasing the 

risk of accidental human-caused ignition. This 

increased risk would be minimal during the peak 

fire season (summer) because most visitor use 

would occur during the late fall, winter, and 

early spring. Increased visitor use is expected to 

only slightly affect opportunities for fire use or 

prescribed fire.

The number of improvements and structures 

could also increase, which could lead to changes 

in suppression decisions and commitments of 

suppression resources. Alternative B would 

have the most sites and facilities open to 

visitation and public use. Alternative B is also 

expected to have the most public visitation of all 

Alternatives.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

allocating SCRMAs and developing sites for 

interpretation would increase the risk of 

accidental human-caused ignition. These 

measures would also increase the number of 

improvements and structures, which could 

change suppression decisions and commitments 

of suppression resources. The relative size of 

impacts would be as follows:

greatest under Alternative B (316,103 

acres of SCRMA, representing 35 

percent of the planning area) 

intermediate under Alternative C

(276,527 acres of SCRMA, representing 

31 percent of the planning area) 

least under Alternative D (125,292 acres 

of SCRMA, representing 14 percent of 

the planning area) 

See Tables 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 to view the 

different areas allocated to different use levels 

under each Alternative.

4.18.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected from 

paleontological resource management.

4.18.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Current recreation access poses a risk of humancaused fire ignitions. As recreation use 

increases, fire frequency would increase..

In addition, target shooting anywhere would 

increase the potential for accidental humancaused ignitions. Shooting is a common cause 

of wildfire in some areas.

Alternative B

Increases in recreation visitation would result in 

increased occurrences of human-caused 

ignition. Allowing dispersed camping with few 

limitations could also increase the risk of 

human-caused ignitions.

In both planning areas allocations of Front 

Country RMZs, Back Country RMZs, and 

SRMAs would result in allocating roads and 

trails for commercial and motorized competitive 

events as well as motorized recreation. In 
Chapter 4

622

addition, staging and camping areas would be 

developed to meet the high demand for 

recreation. These measures would affect fire by 

increasing the risk of accidental human-caused 

ignition. The potential for human-caused fire 

starts would increase as a result of increases in 

the following:

visitor use, 

target and recreational shooting, 

motorized recreation use confined to 

designated routes, and 

unauthorized off-road use. 

The potential for accidental human-caused fire 

starts would increase as a result of dispersed 

non-motorized non-commercial individuals, 

group activities, and public camping not under 

SRPs. The presence of improvements and 

increased visitor use could change suppression 

decisions, prioritization of resources, and 

resulting costs.

Alternative C

Impacts in planning areas, Front/Back Country 

RMZs and SRMAs, would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B. In SRMAs where 

vehicles use is restricted potential human-caused 

ignitions would decline.

Alternative D

Impacts in planning areas, Front/Back Country 

RMZs and SRMAs would be similar to those 

described for Alternatives B, except there would 

be more restrictions on vehicle use and risk of 

human-caused ignitions would decline.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts for Alternative E are the same as those 

described for Alternative B.

4.18.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.18.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Current grazing practices affect fire management 

in many ways. Improvements designed for 

managing livestock, such as water facilities, 

fences, corrals, and other structures, present a 

risk of property loss in the event of a wildfire, as 

well as potential hazards to fire fighters and fire 

operations. On the other hand, many wildfire 

suppression actions depend on water from range 

improvements.

Livestock removing forage, especially 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 red brome (bromus rubens) 

and downy brome (bromus tectorum), 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 non-native 
Chapter 4

623

invasive annual plants, and the eventual loss of 

native desert vegetation in those places.

Woody species have encroached on the natural 

desert grasslands, reducing natural fire 

frequency and reducing light fuels to carry 

natural fires. As a consequence, a prescribed 

burning program has been developed to reduce 

woody species and encourage recovery of 

natural grasses. Many factors affect the success 

of the prescribed fire program, not the least of 

which is the assurance of adequate amounts of 

fuel to carry a fire. Livestock grazing in areas 

planned for burning can remove enough fuel to 

reduce or eliminate the opportunity to 

successfully burn. Rest from livestock of a 

season or more in those same pastures can also 

increase the opportunity for natural fire starts 

from lightning or from unplanned human 

ignition.

In Sonoran desert vegetation communities, 

prescribed burning is confined to the fire 

adapted Arizona Interior Chaparral vegetation 

communities, mainly in the foothills of the 

Bradshaw Mountains. Livestock grazing in 

those areas would have little effect on prescribed 

or wildland fire operations. In desertscrub and 

other desert 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 1 year in 10, livestock would not affect 

fire potential.

Riparian areas are not typically in a prescribed 

burn treatment area, but specific vegetation 

objectives might allow for prescribed fire use.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In Agua Fria National Monument Alternative B

would allow some naturally ignited fires to burn 

if defined prescriptive conditions are being met.

This could reduce the cost of prescribed burning, 

but may increase the risk of escaped wildfires.

Nevertheless, impacts would be similar to those 

under Alternative A.

4.18.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area allows 

new mineral entry as well as development of 

existing mineral rights. The result is an increase 

in human activity and in the probability of 

human-caused fire ignitions. Development 

associated with mining also increases the risk 

and complexity of wildland fire suppression 

operations. Since the Agua Fria National 

Monument is closed to new mineral entry, 

there are no fire impacts related to mineral 

development.

4.18.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

In both planning areas current fire management 

practices require full suppression using suitable 

management response on all wildfire starts (both 

human and natural ignition caused). Fire 

suppression on small-fire starts can prevent fires 

from becoming large and harming resources but 

does not allow for wildland fire use under a 

predetermined fire prescription. However, 

current management practices allow only for 

implementing management-ignited prescribed 

fire.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

14,000 acres have been selected for prescribed 

fire treatments in the Weaver Mountains.

Prescribed fire objectives are to conduct 

multiple prescribed fire treatments over 5 to 10 

years to treat hazardous fuel accumulations in 

interior chaparral vegetation. The treatments 
Chapter 4

624

would create a diverse mixed-aged stand of 

interior chaparral. Creating a mosaic pattern of 

burned and unburned areas in the treatment area 

would reduce the threat of large catastrophic 

wildfires and maximize benefits to wildlife and 

livestock grazing.

Existing roads and disturbed areas would be 

used in fire suppression and prescribed fire to 

avoid impacts to other resources, especially 

cultural resources.

The encroachment of urban development on 

adjacent private lands could affect wildland fire 

suppression strategies and tactics, depending on 

the time of year and intensity of wildfires.

Wildland Urban Interface areas (WUI) would 

not allow the option of using wildland fire. WUI 

would also affect the following aspects of 

prescribed fire operations on public lands:

limiting the location of burnblocks, 

altering firing operations, 

increasing the sensitivity to smoke and 

smoke management, 

impairing visibility and public health, 

and 

increasing prescribed fire cost because 

of the added work to protect WUI areas, 

such as building new firelines and 

adding fire resources (engines, 

firefighters, helicopters). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In both planning units some wildland fire would 

be allowed if defined prescriptive conditions are 

being met. Wildland fire use would allow for 

fire to play its natural role, especially in the 

Agua Fria National Monument tobosa 

grasslands. Wildland fire use would do the 

following:

help to maintain and enhance this 

grassland ecosystem, 

encourage perennial grass species, and 

reduce the encroachment of woody 

species. 

Wildland fire use would be beneficial in both 

planning areas except in the Sonoran Desert 

vegetation communities, which constitute the 

majority of vegetation communities in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

Suppression impacts would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A.

4.18.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Wild horse and burro management would not 

affect fire management under any of the 

Alternatives.

4.18.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Restricting vehicles to existing roads and trails 

in the Phoenix Resource Management Plan 

(BLM 1988a), would reduce the potential for 

accidental human-caused ignitions. The limits 

on motorized vehicles could reduce the potential 

for human-caused wildfire ignitions. This 

restriction affects fire suppression strategies as 

well as options for fuel treatment. Limits on 

vehicle access also affect the number and type 

(OHV versus pedestrian) of visitors to these 

areas, thus reducing the probability of humancaused ignitions.

The probability of human-caused fire continues 

to increase as a result of an expanding human 

population. Initially, no major impacts to the 

Fire Management Program are expected, but as 

increases in vehicle travel on designated routes 

continue, the potential for human-caused fire 

would also increase.
Chapter 4

625

Alternative B

Impacts to fire under Alternative B would be 

similar to those described for Alternative A. 

In both planning areas confining vehicles to 

designated routes would reduce the potential for 

accidental human-caused ignitions. This 

restriction is especially important in grassland 

fuel types. In SRMAs where vehicle use is 

restricted potential human-caused ignitions 

would be reduced.

Alternative C, D and E (Proposed Alternative)

The impacts would be the same as under 

Alternative B.

4.18.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no areas under consideration for 

management of wilderness characteristics; 

therefore, there are no impacts on fire 

management.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

For both planning areas, management of 

wilderness characteristics may impact fire 

suppression by constraining the construction of 

new firelines using heavy equipment.

Implementation of appropriate management 

response for values at risk would offset the 

impacts from the potential loss of heavy 

equipment. Management of wilderness 

characteristics is not anticipated to have a 

negative impact on either fire suppression or 

fuels treatment within the designated areas. 

4.19 Impacts on Wild 

Horses and Burros

4.19.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts are expected to the animals present 

or their habitat elements as a result of continuing 

to implement current management of the Hells 

Canyon or Hummingbird Springs Wilderness 

Areas. In the event of a gather in these areas, a 

site-specific analysis would be completed for the 

use of motorized equipment. The Harquahala 

burro herd is small. According to the 

manageability analysis in Appendix G, the 

herd is probably too small to contain enough 

genetic diversity to be a viable population.

Removing any burros would reduce the herd‘s 

genetic diversity even further.

Alternative B

Tule Creek ACEC would be fenced to deny 

livestock access. Burros would continue to use 

the area. 

No other Special Designations would be created 

under Alternative B in the Harquahala HA.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, Tule Creek and Sheep 

Mountain RNA ACECs would be designated in 

or near the Lake Pleasant HMA but would not 

affect the burro herd.

Designating the Harquahala Mountains ONA 

ACEC would not affect the burro herd.

Alternative D

Impacts to the Lake Pleasant HMA would be the 

same as described for Alternative C.
Chapter 4

626

Alternative D would designate two ACECs in 

the Harquahala HA: the Harquahala Mountains 

ONA ACEC and the Belmont-Big Horn 

Mountains ACEC. Despite the larger area in 

ACEC designations, impacts to burros would be 

the same as described for Alternative C.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts to the Lake Pleasant HMA would be the 

same as described for Alternative C.

Designating the Harquahala Mountains ACEC 

would not affect the burro herd.

4.19.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.19.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and 

E (Proposed Alternative)

No impacts to burros are expected from the 

management of soil, water, or air resources.

4.19.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Under No Action wild burros would continue to 

compete with native wildlife for forage and 

water. Developing water resources such as 

springs and seeps, which are designed to protect 

ecological functions, could affect wild burros by 

improving the habitat in the Lake Pleasant HMA 

and Harquahala HA. Projects that encourage 

developing a more reliable water source could 

increase the forage production in the vicinity.

Improvements, however, could include the 

installing of fences to prohibit cattle and wild 

burros from using the water sources, leading to a 

decrease in available water supply and less 

available habitat.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

In the Lake Pleasant HMA impacts would be the 

same as described for Alternative A.

In the Harquahala HA allocation of the 

Harquahala Mountain WHA would not affect 

burros.

4.19.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Reducing or eliminating impacts of land uses on 

cultural resources as identified through study 

plots could require installing fences, which 

could affect the wild burros by limiting their 

available range. The potential fenced areas 

would be small, only negligibly affecting 

available burro forage or habitat.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Wild burros could be affected by allocating the 

following:

Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria SCRMA in the 

Castle Hot Springs MU, which includes 

21,342 acres of the Lake Pleasant HMA, 

and 

Harquahala Mountains SCRMA in the 

Harquahala Mountains MU, which 

includes 24,299 acres of the Harquahala 

HA. 

Any installing of fences to protect areas could 

limit the available range of wild burros. Any 

fence is expected to be small and to negligibly 

affect burros. Increasing visitor facilities could 
Chapter 4

627

pressure wild burros to migrate to less developed 

areas, possibly increasing human–burro 

interactions. Wild burros that become 

accustomed to human interactions are more 

likely to congregate around public areas, 

increasing the likelihood of injury to both wild 

burros and people. Additionally, with the 

increase in travel routes, recreational trails, and 

above-ground features (restrooms, picnic tables, 

benches, trash receptacles, interpretive signs), 

wild burros would be affected by the quality and 

quantity of diminishing wild burro habitat.

4.19.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.19.7 From Recreation 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Increasing OHV use could affect wild burros by 

increasing the possibility of vehicle-burro 

conflicts. Also, increases in recreation use could 

slightly reduce the amount of available forage 

from disturbance caused by camping, crosscountry vehicular travel, and other recreation 

activities. The incidence of burro-human 

encounters could also increase, increasing the 

risk of injury to both people and burros.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Recreational use on designated motorized 

vehicle routes, in organized competitive events, 

and in developed staging/camping areas could 

decrease the amount of available habitat for wild 

burros and increase the risk of bodily injury to 

the wild burros during these events.

Areas allocated to non-motorized settings could 

help minimize impacts to vegetation from 

motorized recreation, increasing available 

forage.

4.19.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.19.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Implementing Rangeland Health Standards 

(Land Health Standards) and Guidelines for 

Grazing Management (Rangeland Management) 

could improve overall vegetation, soil, and water 

conditions in Lake Pleasant HMA and 

Harquahala HA.

Maintaining existing authorized grazing 

allotments could give burros more water 

sources. Grazing practices, however, increase 

competition for available forage and water.

Alternative B

Impacts are expected to be the same as 

Alternative A, except building fences or 

implementing other barrier restrictions to 

riparian grazing during winter (November 1 to 

March 1) could affect wild burros. Areas 

excluded from livestock use would restrict wild 

burro access as well. These restrictions could 

affect the availability of forage and water for 

wild burros by increasing competition and 

decreasing available range size.

Alternative C

Expected impacts would be similar to those 

under Alternative B.
Chapter 4

628

Alternative D

Eliminating all livestock grazing in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would 

eliminate burro-cattle competition for forage and 

water. Unneeded grazing improvements would 

also be eliminated, which could lead to a 

decrease in available water sources for wild 

burros. Fences and cattleguards would likely be 

removed, which could expand the wild burros‘ 

available range.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative B.

4.19.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.19.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected.

4.19.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Retaining the current Lake Pleasant HMA and 

managing the wild burros on BLM-administered 

public lands consistent with the Wild Horse and 

Burro Act of 1971 (WHBA) would potentially

enhance the genetic viability of this herd by 

maintaining a thriving ecological balance. The 

social structures of the herd could be disrupted 

by removing nuisance animals when they are 

reported and by gathering excess burros from the 

Lake Pleasant HMA to achieve the AML. 

Current plans prescribe removing all burros 

from the Harquahala HA.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts to wild burros in the Lake Pleasant 

HMA would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A.

According to the herd manageability analysis in 

Appendix G, the Harquahala HA is not 

manageable. The herd area would not become a 

HMA. Nuisance burros and burros damaging 

sensitive habitats can be removed as funds are 

available. The impact of this action could be 

eventual removal of all burros in this HA.

4.19.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Increasing OHV use on existing and 

undesignated route networks, and increasing 

levels of OHV use in the western part of the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, could 

affect wild burros by increasing the possibility 

of vehicle-burro conflicts and cause a loss of 

habitat. Also, increases in motorized recreation 

use could slightly reduce the amount of available 

forage from disturbance caused by cross-country 

vehicular travel. Moreover, the incidence of 

burro-human encounters could also 

increase, elevating the risk of injury to both 

people and burros.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Wild burros and their movement and behavior 

are influenced by the presence of motorized and 

non-motorized trail users. Recreational use on 

designated motorized vehicle routes and route 

systems could decrease the amount of available 

habitat for wild burros and increase the risk of 

bodily injury to the wild burros during these 
Chapter 4

629

events. Increasing levels of use by visitors on 

designated non-motorized trails would further 

fragment burro habitat and cause burro to move 

to other areas. Burros would also be harassed by 

both motorized and non-motorized visitors.

Areas allocated to non-motorized settings could 

help minimize impacts to vegetation from 

motorized recreation, increasing available 

forage.

4.19.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no impacts to wild burros, because no 

lands are allocated to the management of 

wilderness characteristics.

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed

Alternative)

The maintenance and enhancement of lands 

with wilderness characteristics could reduce the 

number of motorized vehicle routes, end crosscountry vehicle travel, and maintain ecological 

conditions. Overall, this allocation would have 

minimal impacts on the number or location of 

wild burros. Areas allocated to non-motorized 

settings could help minimize impacts to 

vegetation from motorized recreation, which 

would increase the available forage. The level of 

harassment of wild burros would be less in areas 

managed for wilderness characteristics since 

most of the areas have few trails and overall 

lower levels of visitation than motorized 

settings. Increased levels of primitive recreation 

into burro use areas could lead to the harassment 

of burros and their movements away from 

hikers, equestrians, and campers. This would be 

significant only if the visitors occupy critical 

burro watering areas during periods of heat 

stress.

4.20 Impacts on 

Travel Management

A route network for access and recreation would 

be designated for Agua Fria National Monument 

as part of the RMP. For the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, designating routes is 

to be completed in 5 years after the plan is 

approved. To understand the impacts of routes 

and access in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area for the RMP Alternatives, a 

model route system was developed. The model 

system is partially based on the inventory and 

the evaluation process that was performed to 

develop the alternative route networks for Agua 

Fria National Monument. The preliminary route 

model and general approach to the route 

designation process are in Appendix N. The 

general assumptions for developing the model 

route system are outlined below

The routes total 2,240 miles, excluding 

highways. 

The route total is based on the new route 

inventory where it has been completed 

and on Arizona Land Resource 

Information System (ALRIS) and 

county data where the inventory is not 

complete. 

The approximate miles of routes in management 

zones are shown in the route distribution on 

Table 4-8. 

Table 4-8. Route Distribution (in miles)

Management 

Area Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

ACECs 0 0.2 19 0 143

Areas alloc to 

maintain 

wilderness 

characteristics

0 47 9 0 35

ERMA and 

SRMA 2,240 2,086 1,889 1,645 2,028
Chapter 4

630

4.20.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Two ACECs are within the monument. The 

Larry Canyon ACEC (80 acres) would remain 

closed to motorized vehicles and the Perry Mesa 

ACEC (9,580 acres) would limit motorized 

vehicles to designated roads and trails.

The five designated wilderness areas 

encompassing 96,820 acres within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would 

remain closed to motorized vehicle use.

Motorized uses associated with the Harquahala 

Mountain Summit Backcountry Byway would 

continue to be positively impacted due to the 

interpretation, staging areas, amenities, route 

markings and periodic maintenance. 

Continued management of proposed Wild and 

Scenic River segments for non-impairment may 

restrict use of some route segments.

Alternative B

Most motorized routes would remain open to 

vehicular travel in Agua Fria National 

Monument (see Section 2.3.1.8), but monument 

lands would remain closed to cross-country 

motorized travel to protect the monument's 

objects. All travel by motorized and mechanized 

vehicles would be restricted to designated routes 

as in Alternative A.

Impacts from suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers 

segments would be similar to Alternative A.

Bloody Basin Rd would be studied to decide 

whether to not to pursue designation of a 

Backcountry Byway in a plan amendment. If 

Bloody Basin Rd was designated, this would 

focus more attention on maintenance and 

interpretation. 

Designated wilderness areas in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area and the Harquahala 

Mountain Summit Backcountry Byway would 

have similar impacts as Alternative A.

The Constellation Mine Road Backcountry 

Byway would have a positive effect on the travel 

and transportation network. Increased 

management would result in more positive 

visitor experiences. Use would likely increase 

on the road area which may negatively impact 

local residents since additional litter, trespass 

and dust are likely. Improved management by 

signing, mapping and volunteers could lessen 

the impacts to local residents. Most use would 

be confined to areas adjacent to the byway, so 

effects are expected to be minimal beyond the 

road. BLM maintenance on Constellation Road 

would be continued at the current standard. 

Special Area Designations would likely cause 

the alteration of the route network. Closing 

washes, vehicle pullouts and routes to campsites 

are likely actions in some areas as a result of the 

route evaluation/designation process. In the 

Tule Creek ACEC, all routes within the fenced 

area would be closed to vehicles as they are 

currently. 

Alternative C

In AFNM, the designation of four ACECs for 

Gila Chub protection, would close 

approximately 1⁄2 mile of route at Silver Creek. 

The ACECs generally include streams located in 

incised canyons that contain no routes or 

motorized access.

Impacts on the suitability of the Agua Fria River 

and additional tributaries for Wild and Scenic 

River eligibility are similar to those in 

Alternatives A.

The Tule Creek ACEC would have impacts 

similar to Alternative B.

Impacts from designation of additional ACECs 

would be determined through the route 

evaluation/designation process described in 

Appendix D. Some ACEC prescriptions limit 

construction or establishment of new routes 

which limit the ability of BLM and user groups 
Chapter 4

631

from planning and installing a vehicle-based 

long distance route network. Specifically, the 

Harquahala ONA ACEC (41,670acres), Black 

Butte ACEC (800acres) and Vulture Mountain 

ACEC (2790acres) all specify no new new route 

building. 

The five designated wilderness areas within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area and the 

Harquahala Mountain Summit Backcountry 

Byway would have impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative A and B.

Alternative D

The Bloody Basin Road Backcountry Byway 

would not be established and current conditions 

would be maintained.

Designation of the Agua Fria River Riparian 

Corridor ACEC within the monument would 

have impacts similar to the Wild and Scenic 

River eligibility study and suitability 

determination as described in Alternative A.

The model route system for Alternative D would 

close 412 miles of routes in ACECs within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. The 

quality and quantity of motorized recreational 

experiences and opportunities could diminish by 

imposing restrictions in ACECs. These ACEC 

route closures could significantly diminish 

opportunities for visitors using motorized 

vehicles and lead to the disconnection of 

multiple routes in the travel network. These 

impacts are described in detail below.

The Tule Creek ACEC would have similar 

effects as described in Alternative B.

Impacts from designation of additional ACECs 

would be determined through the route 

evaluation/designation process described in 

Appendix D. Some ACEC prescriptions limit 

construction or establishment of new routes 

which limit the ability of BLM and user groups 

from planning and installing a vehicle-based 

long distance route network.

The five designated wilderness areas within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area and the 

Harquahala Mountain Backcountry Byway 

would have impacts similar to Alternative A.

Nominating the Black Canyon Trail as National 

Recreation Trail would have a positive impact to 

non-motorized trail users. Motorized and nonmotorized users would be separated along many 

parts of the trail. This separation would improve 

the experience of both motorized and nonmotorized trail users in the Black Canyon Trail 

area. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Under the model route system for the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area 114 miles of vehicle 

routes within ACECs would be closed. Impacts 

of route closures in ACECs would be similar to 

those described in Alternative D.

Nominating the Black Canyon Trail as National 

Recreation Trail would have similar impacts as 

those described in Alternative D. 

The five designated wilderness areas within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area and the 

Harquahala Mountain Backcountry Byway 

would have similar impacts as those described in 

Alternative A.

4.20.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Additional lands and realty authorizations would 

gradually expand the route and travel network.

This would happen over the life of the plan as 

new rights of ways for private and State land 

access, land disposals and installation of new 

utilities, continues. These lands and realty 

actions and associated route construction would 

increase the motorized route network less than 1 

percent annually over the life of the plan. These 

actions would directly and indirectly increase 

route connectivity and links with other route 
Chapter 4

632

networks for motorized recreation. On the other 

hand, subsequent development of these state and 

private lands could lead to the disruption or loss 

of public access. Historically, much of the 

public access to BLM-lands has been through 

private and State lands available for motorized 

and non-motorized user access to public lands.

Development of State and private lands usually 

results in the loss or restriction of this traditional 

access.

During construction and during the operation 

and maintenance of equipment and facilities, 

existing access points may be closed or 

restricted and some new routes may be created. 

Actions could include, but not be limited to: 

closures of some areas to protect public safety 

and/or facilities or equipment associated with 

the utility; maintaining important route 

connections across or along utility rights-of-way 

where compatible with the utility facility and 

suitable for the type of access use (equestrian, 

hiking, bicycling, motorcycle, ATV, or full size 

vehicles); and stabilization of routes to optimize 

use. 

Compliance with the Monument Proclamation

would add requirements of such routes to 

minimize resource damage and would likely 

increase costs associated with new routes. 

4.20.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternative A (No Action)

Impacts from complying with land health 

standards, EPA water quality standards and 

other air quality standards such as PM10 nonattainment may include site-specific route 

closures or mitigation to offset undesired effects 

of routes and their use to soil, air and water. 

In the Bradshaw/Harquahala areas, vehicle route 

and OHV  ̳play‘ area closures on BLMadministered lands, required for protecting and 

mitigating resource damage; or to address 

adverse effects to soil, water and air resources, 

could diminish the motorized route network over 

the life of the plan, especially near private 

property, residential and commercial land 

developments, city and community boundaries 

and State lands. Moreover, these actions would 

occur on a case-by-case basis as problems arise. 

Appendix T, Off-highway Vehicle Mitigation 

Examples, shows the typical type of mitigation 

that would be taken for common resource 

conflicts.

County, State and private owners would apply 

existing law or legal measures to curtail damage 

to their property from the effects of BLMadministered resources. Examples of potential 

resources issues affecting private and State lands 

include fugitive dust and PM10 emissions from 

public roads and OHV travel, soil erosion from 

hill climbs and cross country OHV travel; and 

changes in water courses or water quality due to 

OHV travel and the public use of poorly 

engineered travel routes. Route and area 

closures enacted under 43CFR8342.1 and 

43CFR8364 would impact the amount of 

motorized recreation activity and could diminish 

the overall route network‘s linkage and 

connectivity to other travel route systems. 

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Impacts on Transportation and Access 

management from localized case-by-case 

responses to soil, air and water damage or 

complaints would be similar to Alternative A.

Since route designation has not been completed, 

further analysis would be required on routes in 

the Bradshaw/Harquahala planning area.

On most public lands under all action 

Alternatives, BLM would take direct action 

during and upon designation of the Travel and 

Access network to reduce, eliminate or avoid 

impacts on both public and private soil, water 

and air resources. The designation of travel and 

access networks, the application of dust 

suppression technology, the rerouting and 

specific closure of problem routes, the 

application of buffer zones, the application of 
Chapter 4

633

SRMA prescriptions, and improving the 

engineering of the existing and new routes 

would reduce impacts to soil, water and air 

resources. Potentially, the existing route 

networks would be slightly reduced over time in 

order to protect air, water and soil resources; 

however, this reduction would not be significant. 

4.20.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Resource conflicts are evaluated on a case by 

case basis

Alternative B

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

64,220 acres would be managed as Wildlife 

Habitat Areas (WHA) emphasizing wildlife 

habitat conservation. Managing WHAs could 

limit transportation access and vehicle routes 

that interfere with the conservation of the 

wildlife habitat. This limitation on access could 

shift transportation to other areas and 

concentrate vehicle usage on routes that remain 

open. New route construction for recreation 

purposes could be prohibited, while routes for 

resource management, such as wildlife waters, 

could be allowed on a case by case basis. Route 

connectivity in WHAs would be secondary to 

the wildlife management

Route closure or mitigation may be required to 

resolve conflicts between biological resources 

and public access management during the route 

evaluation/designation process.

Desert tortoise habitat management prescriptions 

may restrict construction of new routes and 

designation of existing routes.

Alternative C

In AFNM, impacts of managing biological 

resources, specifically Pronghorn Antelope, 

would cause the limitation of some routes to 

only administrative use. In the monument, 

39,330 acres would be managed as WHA, 

reducing access more than previous 

Alternatives. Due to the current low use of areas 

away from Bloody Basin Rd, Pronghorn issues 

would not be an immediate cause for area 

closure, although use level changes may prompt 

further review. 

Protection of riparian resources is the largest 

impact to the route network causing closure of 

1.34miles in Badger Springs Wash, and 2.2 

miles along Sycamore Creek. 

This Alternative would also provide more active 

management of biological resources than 

Alternatives A or B. As a result, management of 

biological resources under Alternative C would 

have slightly more impact than Alternative B

In the Bradshaw/Harquahala area, impacts of 

WHA would be the same as Alternative B except

that Alternative C would provide management of 

more WHA than Alternative B. 156,120 acres in 

the Bradshaw Harquahala Planning Area would 

be managed as WHAs.

Alternative D

In AFNM, impacts due to riparian area and 

wildlife management would be similar to Alt C. 

Impacts of managing WHAs would be the same 

as Alternative C except that in the Bradshaw 

Harquahala Planning Area 18,020 acres would 

be managed as WHAs.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In AFNM, management of Pronghorn Antelope 

fawning and movement habitat could have the 

effect of possibly causing restrictions to the 

route network in the future if negative impacts 

are documented between human use of routes 

and Pronghorn behavior and or habitat 

fragmentation. There are 34.9 miles of 

designated open routes inside Pronghorn 

movement corridors and 23.7 miles inside 

fawning areas. 
Chapter 4

634

In Bradshaw/Harquahala area, impacts of 

managing WHAs would be similar to 

Alternative C except that in the Bradshaw 

Harquahala Planning Area 140,310 acres would 

be managed as WHAs. New route construction 

for recreation purposes could be prohibited, 

while routes for resource management, such as 

wildlife waters, could be allowed on a case by 

case basis. Route connectivity in WHAs would 

be secondary to the wildlife management 

purpose during route designation. Some routes, 

if determined to be incompatible with wildlife 

management, may be closed. 

Management of biological resources under this 

Alternative would restrict less motorized access 

than Alternative D, but more than Alternative C.

4.20.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Cultural resource management would have little 

impact on the existing Transportation and 

Access network. A few specific vehicle travel 

routes could be closed in the Agua Fria National 

Monument to protect cultural sites or mitigate 

existing resource damage, but the extent of such 

closures would have little overall impact on 

motorized opportunities and the current state of 

route connectivity.

Alternative B, C and D

Vehicle travel networks could be adversely 

influenced in some areas of the Agua Fria 

National Monument as some routes would be 

closed for cultural site protection. Route 

connectivity could be diminished and the quality 

of vehicle-based recreation pursuits would 

decline in the involved areas as the closures are 

implemented. Routes on Perry Mesa, Sycamore 

Mesa, and Black Mesa would be closed or 

partially closed to maximize protection of 

cultural resources. Specifically, a route north of 

Joe‘s Hill will be closed to public use to protect 

cultural resources. The route to Pueblo La Plata 

would be shortened to create more distance 

between vehicle parking and known 

archeological sites. 

In Bradshaw/Harquahala area, routes may be 

closed through the route evaluation/designation 

process if determined at that time to impact 

cultural resources.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts on the Transportation network and 

public access for AFNM would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B. The 

potential closing of routes in the planning areas 

as protective measures for cultural sites would 

diminish or displace users in affected areas and 

possibly reduce the connectivity of the involved 

route networks. Opportunities for access to 

some cultural sites would be reduced or 

eliminated for motorized users, especially in 

parts of the Agua Fria National Monument. In 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning area, the 

Black Mesa/Bumble Bee Cultural Resource 

Priority Area, and the Black Canyon Corridor, 

the Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria, 

Wickenburg/Vulture, Weaver/Octave, 

Harquahala and Galena Gulch SCRMAs could 

have reduced motorized access as a result of 

route designation after the plan.

4.20.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected because no 

paleontological sites are known to exist in the 

planning areas.

4.20.7 From Recreation 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

The Agua Fria National Monument is closed to 

cross-country motorized travel to protect 

monument resources; however, most existing 
Chapter 4

635

routes would remain open. In areas where 

vehicles are used, opportunities would remain 

unchanged since existing routes would be 

designated as open.

Most use of routes for vehicle based special 

recreation permits (SRPs) would be displaced to 

the Bumble Bee Area. Conversely, approved 

SRPs on AFNM would only use approved 

routes, regardless of transportation method, and 

would likely have a negligible effect on travel 

and transportation volumes. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

nearly 100 percent of the 2,240 miles of vehicle 

routes would remain open. Existing types of 

motorized and vehicle-based recreation 

opportunities would continue unchanged.

Intensive vehicle based recreation, such as OHV 

driving, would be marketed to Special 

Recreation Management Areas established for 

such use. The Hieroglyphic Mountains, Table 

Mesa, Stanton, San Domingo and Vulture 

Mountains SRMAs are destinations for OHV 

recreation. The effect on Travel/Transportation 

would be an expected use increase proportionate 

to regional population increase over the life of 

the plan. Maricopa and Yavapai county 

populations are expected to grow by 

approximately 50 percent by 2025. 

Alternative B

As in Alternative A, most routes would remain 

open to vehicular travel in Agua Fria National 

Monument. Recreational shooting restrictions 

could displace this use to other areas where it 

would be allowed. Most recreational shooting 

areas occur along roads, so the mix of route 

users could change in a given area. This is a key 

component in managing conflict among different 

public land uses.

The proposed route system, developed though an 

interdisciplinary evaluation process would 

enhance recreational opportunities for motorized 

users by creating loop trails, which would allow 

connected touring, provide for greater access, 

and offer more extended and dispersed 

recreational opportunities. General access for 

motorized users would be improved by the 

development of about 5 miles of new routes 

needed to bypass private property and maintain 

route system connectivity. The proposed route 

system would retain 134 miles, close 37 miles of 

existing routes and could diminish opportunities 

for motorized recreation in some areas. Users of 

the routes that would be closed could be 

displaced to other areas within and outside the 

monument.

Under the model route system (Appendix N) for 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, about 

93 percent of existing routes would remain 

open. A total of 169 miles of routes within the 

planning area could be closed to (1) protect 

resources, (2) reduce redundancy, and (3) limit 

routes for administrative use. The closures 

represent 6.9 percent of the routes in the 

planning area. Current motorized users would 

be displaced to other State and public lands. Up 

to 14 miles of new routes would be established 

to mitigate losses from the closures and to 

achieve better route connectivity. The total 

distance of open routes would eventually reach 

2,086 miles. The overall effect of route 

management under Alternative B would be to 

maintain the existing recreation settings and 

opportunities and avoid greatly changing or 

diminishing motorized recreation opportunities 

and public access throughout the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area.

Alternative C 

In Agua Fria National Monument, 123 miles of 

routes would remain open to vehicular travel. 

The route system developed under Alternative C

would create loop trails for motorized touring 

and add new routes to bypass private property. 

About 6 miles of new routes would be 

developed and would affect motorized recreation 

opportunities and public access by maintaining 

route connectivity in the event of private land 

closures.

The impacts on opportunities for motorized 

recreation in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those under Alternative 
Chapter 4

636

B, but the model route system for Alternative C

could close 382 miles of routes in the planning 

area, 1,889 miles of routes would remain open, 

and 382 miles of potential closures would be 

mitigated by up to 26 miles of new routes. The 

total distance of open routes would be 1,915 

miles or 15 percent less than the existing routes 

and 9 percent less than in Alternative B.

The impacts on opportunities for motorized 

recreation in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those under Alternative 

B, but the total distance of open routes would be 

1,915 miles or 15 percent less than the existing 

routes under Alternative A and 9 less than in 

Alternative B.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, 48 miles, of 

routes would remain open to vehicular travel. 

The route system under Alternative D was 

developed mainly for resource protection and 

would not add new routes. Opportunities for 

motorized recreation would be limited or 

foregone, as loop trails would not be developed. 

The route system would close 123 miles of 

existing routes and this action would displace or 

eliminate opportunities for motorized recreation 

and public access to some areas.

The impacts on opportunities for motorized 

recreation in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those under Alternative 

C, but the model route system for Alternative D

could close 723 miles of routes in the planning 

area, 1,645 miles of routes would remain open, 

and 723 miles of potential closures would be 

mitigated by up to 62 miles of new routes.

Route closures would diminish or displace 

opportunities for traditional users, and route and 

area closures could result in the disconnection of 

multiple routes in the network. Some motorized 

use and public access would be foregone all 

together.

As a result of changing recreational settings in 

the Bradshaw/Harquahala area, the Hieroglyphic 

Mountains area could be gradually changed to 

low dust generating recreation. This could make 

motorized recreation use routes further from the 

area to prevent dust in the PM10 non-attainment 

area.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

The route network within the Agua Fria National 

Monument under the proposed Alternative 

would retain 94 miles of existing route. About 

52 miles of route would be closed and another 

25 miles would be limited to administrative 

access (closed to the public). Impacts to the 

travel network from the proposed recreation 

management would be similar to Alternative 

Restriction to existing campsites would have a 

minimal effect on the use of designated route 

network since most campsites that would be 

allowed for use are within 100 feet of a 

designated route. Most of the regularly used 

campsites occur along main routes such as 

Bloody Basin Rd and Forest Road 14. The free 

permit requirement for dispersed tent camping 

would have no effect on the route network. 

The restriction of motorized campers/ RV units 

in Backcountry areas would have little effect on 

access since camping would be restricted to 

existing sites already used by these type of 

vehicle. Backcountry areas that have passage 

zones would still allow camping within the 

passage zone. The zone is 200ft wide, 100ft 

either side of the route. Many routes in the 

passage zones are rough and would not appeal to 

those driving campers or RVs. 

The impacts on opportunities for motorized 

recreation in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those under Alternative 

B, but the model route system for Alternative E

could close 211 miles of routes in the planning 

area, 2,028 miles of routes would remain open, 

and 211 miles of potential closures would be

mitigated by up to 39 miles of new routes. The 

total distance of open routes would be 2,067

miles

Developing connecting route networks and 

public access for hikers, bicycles, OHVs, and 
Chapter 4

637

equestrians would benefit recreational 

opportunities because all types of users could 

enjoy activities consistently, in more areas, and 

with fewer interruptions. Once completed, the 

Black Canyon Trail from the Carefree Highway 

to north of Highway 69 would become a major 

trail of regional significance for mountain 

bikers, equestrians, and hikers. Moreover, the 

trail would link the communities of the Black 

Canyon corridor and the north boundary of the 

Phoenix-Peoria metropolis.

Managing the North Black Canyon Trail RMZ 

would enhance the non-motorized recreation 

access by assuring long-term access to the trail 

as well as connections to public land to the south 

and Forest Service land to the north and east. If 

a parallel motorized route was implemented as 

described in the alternatives, the RMZ would not 

impact the motorized route network.

4.20.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Visual resource management would have no 

effect on the current Travel Management

network. New motorized and non-motorized 

routes would be developed on a case-by-case 

basis and could probably be developed across 

most of the Bradshaw-Harquahala planning 

area. VRM would have little effect on the 

AFNM, as the proclamation already 

significantly restricts development of new travel 

routes incompatible with monument objects.

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Designation of VRM I and II classes across 

assorted landscape allocations and areas within 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area could 

restrict or modify the construction of new travel 

routes or the realignment of existing travel 

routes if such routes were inconsistent with 

VRM management objectives. Management 

would be strict in designated wilderness with 

Class I VRM designation and with no motorized 

travel routes authorized. Non-motorized trails 

would be easier to install than new roads due to 

their smaller scope and effect. Singletrack trails 

for motorized use would be similar to nonmotorized trails due with comparative width and 

location on the landscape.

Some travel routes could be developed in 

ACECs with Class I and II VRM designations, 

but could be considerably restricted with 

recognized scenic values and landscapes.

Installation of new travel routes within Class III 

and IV VRM class areas would usually be 

consistent with visual management objectives 

for these areas, and enable the development of 

reasonable levels of Travel Management to and 

through such areas.

4.20.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action)

In both AFNM and Bradshaw/Harquahala areas, 

travel management would be largely unaffected 

by rangeland management since routes open for 

grazing would be open for public use. The use 

of routes for historical sightseeing, such as 

viewing stock pens, stock tanks and other 

improvements, is likely to increase proportionate 

to regional population. 

Installation of new rangeland developments 

might slightly increase motorized public access 

if the routes are made available for public use.

On the other hand, the closure or abandonment 

of rangeland developments could eventually 

contribute to the loss of public access, as 

livestock facilities are removed and access 

routes reclaimed. Vandalism to livestock 

facilities from public land visitors could 

potentially lead to the closure of public access 

routes. Over the long term, closure of travel 

routes in order to avoid conflicts or protect 

facilities from vandalism could have the greatest 

influence on reducing public access. Only in 

specific cases where range facilities are at 

exceptional risk from vandalism will routes to 

them be closed to the public. 
Chapter 4

638

In AFNM, 54% of the routes (by mileage) serve 

range management purposes. In the BradshawHarquahala planning area, the number is likely 

to be smaller due to a larger route network and 

more of the routes created for historic mining 

access.

In AFNM, Map 2-11 shows the routes that were 

inventoried and that would be open under Alt A. 

Alternative B

Impacts in both areas would be similar to 

Alternative A. In AFNM, the transportation 

network is impacted by rangeland management 

since it is the main commercial use of the 

monument and 54% of the routes (by mileage) 

serve range management purposes. Regular use 

by the range permittees helps to keep the routes 

passable. 

Alternative C

Impacts in both areas would be similar to 

Alternative A. Exclusion of grazing from 

riparian pastures would have little impact on the 

route system since the route system already 

avoids or has routes closed in riparian areas and 

riparian pastures generally have few range 

improvements.

Alternative D

In both the AFNM and Bradshaw/Harquahala 

areas, public access could be negatively affected 

by the decision to eliminate grazing since many 

routes that access range improvements may no 

longer be needed. Livestock grazing permittees 

use maintain many routes. Without grazing, this 

route maintenance would depend on agency 

funding and may be delayed or not occur. 

Accessibility would be reduced over time in 

many areas due to route deterioration. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In AFNM, routes to range facilites are restricted 

to administrative access in several areas. Some 

administrative routes may be used by range 

permittees although the limitation is for another 

reason. Routes limited to administrative access 

are:

Bob‘s Tank (26B), Joe‘s Tank(26C), pipeline to 

well(31S), routes to well and water tank along 

the Agua Fria River(30, 35), gas pipeline 

segment(31Y,31Z), 31T(water pipeline) 

unnamed dirt tank(15B, 15C), unnamed steel 

tanks(8C), unnamed dirt tank(1H), inter-ranch 

access(1Z). Map 2-76 displays the 

administrative routes. 

In AFNM, regular use of routes for range 

management keeps the routes passable. As in 

the other alternatives, about 54% of the routes 

serve ranching purposes.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala planning area 

impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

4.20.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action) , B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Mineral management would have no impact on 

transportation or access on the AFNM because it 

is closed to mineral entry and existing claims are 

unlikely to be substantially developed.

In the Bradshaw/Harquahala area, new mineral 

sales, leases, NOIs or plans of operations may 

increase public access if routes are made 

available for public use. New mining routes 

could displace traditional trail users. Closure of 

mining could eventually contribute to the loss of 

public access when routes are reclaimed. Areas 

closed to various forms of mineral entry would 

preclude the need to develop mining related 

roads and access which would reduce potential 

access to new areas in the future.

Existing routes may be closed to public use if 

active mining operations pose a threat to public 

health or safety.
Chapter 4

639

4.20.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Impacts from fire management and suppression 

operations to transportation and access on public 

lands within the Agua Fria National Monument 

and the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning area 

would likely be minimal.

Fire management activities are conducted using 

designated routes whenever possible. Temporary 

closures may limit access during wildfire 

suppression and prescribed burning. Emergency 

vehicles are exempt from route designation

restrictions by definition in 43 CFR8340.0-5. 

Some rehabilitation work may be necessary in 

burned areas to stop continued use of crosscountry tracks created by firefighting activities. 

Some routes may be upgraded for emergency 

use during fire suppression and may require 

some level of reclamation to be returned to the 

desired level of access.

4.20.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Travel management would not be 

affected by management of wild burro 

populations or herd areas within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning area. There 

are no wild burro populations within the 

Agua Fria National Monument, 

consequently there are no effects.

4.20.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

The Agua Fria National Monument is closed to 

cross-country motorized travel to protect 

monument resources; however, most existing 

routes would remain open. In areas where 

vehicles are used, opportunities would remain 

unchanged since existing routes would be 

designated as open.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

nearly 100 percent of the 2,240 miles of vehicle 

routes would remain open. Existing types of 

motorized and vehicle-based travel opportunities 

would continue unchanged.

Alternative B

As in Alternative A, most routes would remain 

open to vehicular travel in Agua Fria National 

Monument. 

The proposed route system, developed though an 

interdisciplinary evaluation process, would 

enhance opportunities for motorized users by 

creating loop trails, which provide for greater 

access. General access for motorized users 

would be improved by the development of 

about 5 miles of new routes needed to bypass 

private property and maintain route system 

connectivity. The proposed route system would 

close 37 miles of existing routes and could 

diminish access to some areas. Appendix V 

details the criteria, analysis and justifications 

used in the route evaluation and designation 

process for the monument.

Under the model route system (Appendix N) for 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, about 

93 percent of existing routes would remain 

open. A total of 169 miles of routes within the 

planning area could be closed to (1) protect 

resources, (2) reduce redundancy, and (3) limit 

routes for administrative use. The closures 

represent 6.9 percent of the routes in the 

planning area. Current motorized users would 
Chapter 4

640

be displaced to other State and public lands. Up 

to 14 miles of new routes would be established 

to mitigate losses from the closures and to 

achieve better route connectivity. The total 

distance of open routes would eventually reach 

2,086 miles.

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument, 123 miles, or 

69.7 percent, of routes would remain open to 

vehicular travel. The route system developed 

under Alternative C would create loop trails for 

motorized touring and add new routes to bypass 

private property. About 6 miles of new routes 

would be developed and would affect public 

access by maintaining route connectivity in the 

event of private land closures. Appendix V 

details the criteria, analysis and justifications 

used in the route evaluation and designation 

process for the monument.

The impacts on opportunities for motorized 

access in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those under Alternative 

B, but the model route system for Alternative C

could close 382 miles of routes in the planning 

area, 1,889 miles of routes would remain open, 

and 382 miles of potential closures would be 

mitigated by up to 26 miles of new routes. The 

total distance of open routes would be 1,915 

miles or 15 percent less than the existing routes 

and 9 percent less than in Alternative B.

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, 52 miles, or 

41 percent, of routes would remain open to 

vehicular travel. The route system under 

Alternative D was developed mainly for 

resource protection and would not add new 

routes. The route system would close 94 miles 

of existing routes and this action would displace 

or eliminate opportunities for motorized public 

access to some areas. Appendix V details the 

criteria, analysis and justifications used in the 

route evaluation and designation process for the 

monument.

The impacts on access in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be similar to 

those under Alternative C, but the model route 

system for Alternative D could close 723 miles 

of routes in the planning area, 1,645 miles of 

routes would remain open, and 723 miles of 

potential closures would be mitigated by up to 

62 miles of new routes.

Route closures would diminish or displace 

opportunities for traditional users, and route and 

area closures could result in the disconnection of 

multiple routes in the network. Some motorized 

use and public access would be foregone all 

together.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

The route network within the Agua Fria National 

Monument under the proposed Alternative 

would retain 94 miles of existing route. About 

52 miles of route would be closed and another 

25 miles limited to administrative access only 

(closed to the public). Appendix V details the 

criteria, analysis and justifications used in the 

route evaluation and designation process for the 

monument. Impacts to transportation and access 

from the proposed route network would be 

similar to Alternative B.

The impacts on opportunities for motorized 

access in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those under Alternative 

B. The model route system for Alternative E

could close 211 miles of routes in the planning 

area, 2,028 miles of routes would remain open, 

and 211 miles of potential closures would be 

mitigated by up to 39 miles of new routes. The 

total distance of open routes would be 2,067 

miles.

Developing connecting route networks and 

public access for hikers, bicycles, OHVs, and 

equestrians would improve access in more areas, 

and with fewer interruptions. Once completed, 

the Black Canyon Trail from the Carefree 

Highway to north of Highway 69 would become 

a major trail for mountain bikers, equestrians, 

and hikers. Moreover, the trail would link the 

communities of the Black Canyon corridor and 
Chapter 4

641

the north boundary of the Phoenix-Peoria 

metropolis. Conflict between motorized and 

non-motorized trail users could arise as the new 

Black Canyon Trail links are created. This 

would be avoided by the creation of a generally 

parallel route to the Black Canyon Trail for 

motorized vehicles. By providing a long 

distance route specifically for motorized and 

non-motorized use, the uses would generally be 

separated. There would no impact to either 

group if the motorized and non-motorized routes 

were separated.

4.20.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

In the AFNM and Bradshaw/Harquahala areas, 

there would be no impact from this resource 

since no areas are allocated for wilderness 

characteristics. 

Alternative B

In the AFNM, there are no areas to be managed 

for wilderness characteristics in Alternative B,

therefore there is no impact.

In the Bradshaw/Harquahala area, the main 

impact would be potential long-term restrictions 

or limitations on building or authorizing new 

motorized OHV and public access routes within 

87,070 acres of the Harquahala Management 

Unit. 

Maintenance of wilderness character would be a 

consideration in the route evaluation and 

designation process.

As described in Appendix N, Motorized Route 

Model for the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, managing areas for Wilderness 

Characteristics would likely cause the alteration 

of the route network. Closing washes, pullouts 

and campsite routes is a likely action. 

Connecting routes in washes would likely be 

closed, resulting in a loss of existing vehicle 

route network connectivity. Implementation 

level route designation would identify such 

routes after the completion of this plan. 

Alternative C

In the AFNM, there are no areas allocated for 

management of wilderness characteristics. 

There is no impact from this resource in AFNM.

In Bradshaw/Harquahala, about 107,843 acres 

are allocated under Alt C. The impacts would 

be similar to Alternative B, except that more 

areas would be affected throughout the planning 

area.

Alternative D

In the AFNM, there are no areas proposed to be 

managed to maintain wilderness characteristics, 

therefore there is no impact to travel 

management.

In the AFNM, the route network would be 

indirectly impacted by allocation of 53 percent 

of the Monument (37,571 acres) for the 

management of wilderness characteristics. The 

123 miles of vehicle route proposed for closure 

in Alternative D are closed for the protection of 

Monument Objects. New route construction for 

motorized use would be prohibited. Nonmotorized routes are not prohibited, but 

construction would be avoided except when 

necessary to prevent resource damage. Routes 

in passage zones would be available for vehicle 

use along with vehicle based camping in the 200 

ft wide passage zone. These travel routes are 

described in Chapter 2, Section 2.5.1.8 and 

depicted on Map 2-60. 

In the Bradshaw/Harquahala area, 102,664 acres 

are allocated for management of wilderness 

characteristics. Cumulatively, this allocation 

along with the ACEC designations and WHA 

designations and existing designated wilderness 

areas, connectivity of the route system could be 

the most highly impacted under this alternative. 
Chapter 4

642

In the Black Canyon Corridor, the possibility of 

connecting north-south routes together, 

specifically the old alignment of Black Canyon 

Trail, for an OHV route system could be 

curtailed. Non-motorized routes would likely 

be expanded.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

In the AFNM, 20,900 acres in the Perry Mesa 

area would be allocated. Route construction for 

motorized use would be prohibited. Nonmotorized routes are not prohibited, but 

construction would be avoided except when 

necessary to prevent resource damage. Routes 

in passage zones would be available for vehicle 

use along with vehicle based camping in the 200 

ft wide passage zone. 

In the AFNM, the route network would be 

indirectly impacted by allocation of 29 percent

of the Monument for management of wilderness 

characteristics. The 52 miles of vehicle route 

proposed for closure in Alternative E are closed 

for the protection of Monument Objects. Open 

and closed travel routes are described in Chapter 

2, Section 2.6.1.9 and depicted on Map 2-76.In 

the Bradshaw/Harquahala area, 67,279 acres

would be managed to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. The effects would be similar to 

those described in Alternative B. 

4.21 Impacts on 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

4.21.1 From Special 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

There would be minimal impacts on wilderness 

characteristics under this Alternative in the Agua 

Fria National Monument. Wilderness 

characteristics would probably be maintained 

over the long term for lands in the Agua Fria 

River segments that are recommended suitable 

for WSR designation. The wilderness 

characteristics on 9,660 acres within the Larry 

Canyon and Perry Mesa ACECs would remain 

unchanged. In the remainder of the monument, 

few adverse impacts to wilderness character are 

anticipated. No identified short and long-term 

management actions are anticipated that would 

directly impact wilderness characteristics.

Special Designations would have no effect on 

wilderness characteristics within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area.

Alternative B

The absence of the Larry Canyon and Perry 

Mesa ACECs would little affect wilderness 

characteristics as both areas are protected within 

the Agua Fria National Monument. No

identified short and long-term monument 

management actions that directly or indirectly 

impact wilderness characteristics are 

anticipated. Special Designations would have 

no effect on wilderness characteristics within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

Alternative C

No areas would be specifically managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics in the Agua 

Fria National Monument. Wilderness 

characteristics would probably be maintained 

over the long term for lands allocated as 

proposed Agua Fria River WSR suitable 

segments. Wilderness characteristics on 460 

acres encompassed by the Larry Canyon, Indian 

Creek, and Lousy Canyon ACECs would be 

conserved. Elsewhere, no short and long-term 

monument management actions are anticipated 

that would directly or indirectly impact 

wilderness characteristics. Wilderness 

characteristics extant within the Black Butte 

Raptor and the Harquahala Mountain 

ACECs/ONAs would remain relatively 

unchanged from current circumstances. Other 

Special Management Designations would not 

affect identified wilderness characteristics. 
Chapter 4

643

Alternative D

No areas would be specifically managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics in the Agua 

Fria National Monument. Wilderness 

characteristics would probably be maintained 

over the long term for lands allocated as 

proposed Agua Fria River WSR suitable 

segments. Wilderness characteristics within the 

13,070 acre Agua Fria Riparian Corridor ACEC, 

an ACEC overlapping the proposed Agua Fria 

River suitable segments, would also be 

maintained over the long-term. Elsewhere, no 

short and long-term monument management 

actions are anticipated that would directly or 

indirectly impact wilderness characteristics.

Wilderness characteristics within the Baldy 

Mountain ONA, the Belmont-Big Horn 

Mountains ACEC, the Black Butte Raptor 

ACEC, and the Harquahala Mountains ONA 

would remain relatively unchanged from current 

conditions and in all probability would be 

conserved over the long-term. Other Special 

Designations would not affect identified 

wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Wilderness characteristics would almost 

certainly be maintained over the long term for 

lands allocated as proposed suitable segments of 

the Agua Fria River WSR proposal. In other 

parts of the monument with identified 

wilderness character, no short and long-term 

management actions are anticipated that would 

directly or indirectly impact or impair 

wilderness characteristics. Within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

wilderness characteristics within the 83,210 

acres comprising the Black Butte Raptor and the 

Harquahala Mountains ACECs would remain 

relatively unchanged from current conditions 

and be conserved over the long-term. Other 

Special Designations would not affect identified 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.21.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Lands and Realty management actions would 

have no effect on wilderness characteristics 

under Alternative A. No areas are identified to 

specifically manage, maintain, wilderness 

characteristics. 

Alternative B

Lands and Realty management actions could 

have a minor effect on wilderness characteristics 

within the Harquahala Mountain range under 

Alternative B. Under this Alternative 56,040 

acres would be allocated to managing wilderness 

characteristics. Providing rights-of-way for 

access to State lands, utility lines, or 

communication sites might impact the natural 

conditions and solitude opportunities within the 

area. Overall, such impacts would be considered 

minor since new lands and realty actions must 

be consistent with VRM objectives and Desired 

Future Conditions. It is likely that some 

discretionary lands and realty actions, deemed 

incompatible with maintaining wilderness 

characteristics, would not be allowed. In view 

of that, disallowed lands and realty actions 

would have no effect on wilderness 

characteristics.

Development of utilities in areas that contain 

wilderness characteristics could potentially 

degrade the quality of those characteristics. In 

the short term, construction activities will create 

sights and sounds that are incompatible with 

remoteness, naturalness, and could limit 

primitive recreation opportunities associated 

with wilderness characteristics. In the long 

term, any residual motorized access would be in 

conflict with the same wilderness characteristics. 

In addition, surface disturbance that leaves long 

term visible evidence along with any visible 

above ground facilities would especially degrade 

the naturalness characteristic. Mitigation 

measures to minimize impacts to wilderness 

characteristics could include, but not be limited 
Chapter 4

644

to: avoidance of areas allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics; design construction 

so no, or a minimum of; motorized access would 

be needed for maintenance of equipment or 

facilities; use design techniques to eliminate, or 

at least minimize, visibility of equipment or 

facilities. 

Alternative C

Impacts are the same as described under 

Alternative B, with the exception that seven 

areas totaling 107,843 acres are under 

consideration for managing wilderness 

characteristics.

Alternative D

Impacts are the same as described under 

Alternative B, with the exception that 18 

landscape areas totaling 140,235 acres are to be 

allocated for managing wilderness 

characteristics. 

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics from 

Lands and Realty Actions are similar to those 

described under Alternative B, with the 

exception that 88,179 acres in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area and the Agua Fria 

National Monument are allocated for managing 

wilderness characteristics.

4.21.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Management actions undertaken to protect or 

conserve water and soil resources, or satisfy air 

quality standards, would, in turn, indirectly 

maintain wilderness characteristics and 

providing healthy open space areas near 

communities, offer a more natural-appearing 

landscape, and improve primitive recreation 

experiences for visitors by reducing human

intrusions.

4.21.4 From Biological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E 

(Proposed Alternative)

Habitat improvement actions could have a minor 

effect on areas encompassing wilderness 

characteristics. Installation of habitat 

improvements might impact naturalness and 

impair existing opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation. Such 

outcomes, however, would be considered minor 

since new biological resource management 

actions would be consistent with VRM 

objectives and Desired Future Conditions for 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.21.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no impacts expected from current 

cultural resource management or related 

management actions.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed

Alternative)

Lands with wilderness characteristics could 

benefit from potential route closures prescribed 

to protect cultural sites, primarily sites located in 

or next to lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. The lands with wilderness 

characteristics could benefit from reductions in 

motorized public access, by affording increased 

opportunities for solitude, and offering expanded 

non-motorized recreation settings, all direct 

consequences of route closures. Limiting group 

size to 25 visitors at some cultural sites could 

reduce overcrowding and maintain a more 

natural experience. Development of sites for 

public use would allow concentrations of users 

in certain areas, in most cases drawing visitors
Chapter 4

645

away from zones with wilderness characteristics, 

which would be largely excluded from 

interpretive development. Limiting development 

in other areas would preserve the natural setting 

of places with wilderness characteristics.

4.21.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

There are no impacts expected because no 

paleontological sites are known to exist in the 

planning areas.

4.21.7 From Recreation 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Increasing use and intensity of recreation next to 

lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics could result in a loss of some of 

those characteristics. This effect would be most 

pronounced on the fringes of areas with 

wilderness characteristics. The solitude and 

quality of primitive recreation experiences could 

decline for some users. 

Additionally, potentially growing numbers of 

non-motorized users could impair solitude 

opportunities and contribute to trailing and 

campsite use impacts along the edge, as well as 

the interior, of these wilderness characteristics 

areas. No SRMAs or RMZs would be 

allocated. As a result, intensive recreation uses 

would not be directed to areas suitable or 

compatible for such use. Visitor use would be 

primarily self-directed and not allocated to 

appropriate use areas. Both intensive and 

disperse recreation uses could cause the 

impairment or loss of wilderness characteristics 

along the periphery of the wilderness character 

areas. It is likely that recreation settings would 

gradually shift over time to more motorized 

settings and opportunities.

Current management would result in SRPs being 

issued upon request in both planning areas. 

Permit requests are expected to grow as the 

population grows, which could lead to increased 

numbers of users and conflicts between them; 

further deteriorating opportunities to experience 

solitude and wilderness characteristics.

Alternative B

Designating Front Country and Back Country 

RMZs within the Agua Fria National Monument 

could benefit wilderness characteristics through 

management of more intensive recreation uses.

Opportunities for solitude would be maintained 

in the Back Country RMZ because visitor use 

numbers would in all probability be constrained.

The restriction of motorized access on lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

could benefit non-motorized users by allowing 

them to recreate in a more natural setting. This 

would assure the availability of these areas for 

offering outstanding primitive recreational and 

solitude opportunities.

The reduction in lands available for competitive 

OHV events and competitive races could 

maintain high-quality opportunities to 

experience more natural settings over the longterm. Establishing criteria to manage larger 

group activities would help protect wilderness 

values, enhancing opportunities for solitude.

Therefore, permits for commercial and vending 

operations would be prohibited. The number of 

SRPs would be limited, though this limitation 

would still allow for a significant increase over 

current conditions.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except that Alternative C proposes a larger Back 

Country RMZ within the Agua Fria National 

Monument, and fewer SRPs overall. These 

management actions would offer more solitude 

opportunities and maintain more wilderness 

characteristics for visitors seeking primitive and 

unconfined recreation.
Chapter 4

646

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to Alternatives B and

C, except that Alternative D proposes more Back 

Country RMZ acreage within the Agua Fria 

National Monument, and fewer SRPs overall.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

although restrictions on SRPs would more 

closely resemble Alternative C.

4.21.8 From Visual 

Resource Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would maintain current conditions. 

Wilderness areas are Class I and all remaining 

areas are managed by designation or default as 

Class III. VRM Class III could allow visual 

intrusions that are inconsistent with public 

interests and eventually lead to some intrusions 

in to the visual landscape in or around lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics.

Alternative B

Management of lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics to VRM Class II 

would retain the current physical setting of 

56,040 acres and enhance primitive recreational 

experiences. Improvements or developments in 

these areas would be required to meet design 

criteria to integrate the color, line, form, and 

texture of the facilities with the surrounding 

landscape. This would maintain the area with 

little to no visual impacts from proposed 

developments and maintain or enhance the 

landscape's natural appearance and open space 

values, while meeting other resource 

management objectives.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except 107,843 acres of lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics would be 

managed to VRM Class II.

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except 140,235 acres of lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics would be 

managed to VRM Class I, which would require 

more stringent design criteria.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except that 88,179 acres of lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics would be 

managed to VRM Class II.

4.21.9 From Rangeland 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Wilderness characteristics would not be greatly 

influenced by rangeland management operations 

practiced within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning area or the Agua Fria National 

Monument. Site specific water projects, 

fencing, or vegetation projects may impact small 

areas and associated local recreational users.

Any proposed rangeland projects would, 

however, be developed and installed consistent 

with the Desired Future Conditions for the 

project area‘s biological conditions, recreation 

settings, and visual resources. Accordingly, 

potential visual resource impacts would be 

mitigated and consistent with the management 

of wilderness characteristics.

Alternative B

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics from 

Rangeland Management actions would be 

similar to those presented under Alternative A. 
Chapter 4

647

Alternative C

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics from 

Rangeland Management actions would be 

similar to those presented under Alternative A. 

Alternative D

There would be no cattle grazing on public lands 

under Alternative D. Thus, there would be no 

potential impacts on wilderness characteristics 

accruing from rangeland management practices.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar as those for 

Alternative A.

4.21.10 From Minerals 

Management

Alternative A (No Action)

Mining operations would have no impact on 

wilderness characteristics within the Agua Fria 

National Monument as mining is not allowed 

and the area is closed to mineral entry, mineral 

sales, and leasing. Wilderness characteristics 

could be impaired, decline, or be foregone 

within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

in areas not afforded protection of their 

wilderness characteristics. Over a period of 10 

to 20 years, reasonable levels of mining, leasing 

and sale of mineral materials could adversely 

affect the wilderness characteristics of 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation 

experiences. Without specific management 

actions in place to maintain areas with 

wilderness characteristics, degradation of those 

characteristics could occur from mineral 

management actions. In more remote and nonmineralized areas, wilderness characteristics 

would probably remain unchanged over the life 

of the plan.

Alternatives B and C

Closing the allocation to maintain wilderness 

characteristics to mineral material disposal 

would reduce the potential area for ground 

disturbance and maintain primitive open space.

Long-term impacts on scenery and landscapes 

would be kept away from areas with wilderness 

characteristic. 

Alternative D

Lands allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to mineral sales, 

geothermal leasing and mineral entry. There 

would be little to no impact on wilderness 

characteristics from future mineral exploration 

and development as such actions would 

probably not occur. Natural and primitive 

conditions would be maintained over the longterm.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative 

A. 

4.21.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Proposed Alternative)

No impacts on wilderness characteristics are 

likely from fire management and suppression 

operations on public lands within the Agua Fria 

National Monument and the BradshawHarquahala Planning area.

4.21.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Proposed Alternative)

Wilderness characteristics would not be 

affected by management of wild burro 
Chapter 4

648

populations or herd areas within the BradshawHarquahala Planning area. There are no wild 

burro populations within the Agua Fria National 

Monument, consequently there are no effects.

4.21.13 From Management 

of Travel Management

Alternative A (No Action)

No areas are allocated for maintaining 

wilderness characteristics under this 

Alternative. No impacts on wilderness 

characteristics would be anticipated within the 

Agua Fria National Monument. Wilderness 

characteristics could be impaired, decline, or be 

foregone on up to 186,037 acres within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. Over a 

period of 20 years, reasonable levels of road and 

route development, access rights-of-way and 

other developments requiring roads, along with a 

general expansion of motorized route systems, 

could adversely affect the wilderness 

characteristics of naturalness and opportunities 

for solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation experiences. In more remote areas, 

wilderness characteristics might remain 

unchanged over the life of the plan due to an 

absence or travel and transportation activities.

Alternative B

The impacts of existing or new travel and 

transportation activities on lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics would be 

minimal. Travel and transportation plans and 

affiliated roads, routes and trails would be 

compatible to the wilderness character 

allocation. Development of new non-motorized 

trails and routes could enhance primitive 

recreation activities. Wilderness characteristics 

could be impaired, decline or be foregone due to 

travel and transportation activities on lands not 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics, 

as described under Alternative A. These 

potentially adverse impacts on wilderness 

characteristics would be of a lesser scale than 

described under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Impacts are similar to those described under 

Alternative B for lands allocated and not 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics.

Potentially adverse impacts on wilderness 

characteristics; however, would be of a lesser 

degree than described under Alternatives A or B.

Alternative D

Impacts are similar to those described under 

Alternative B for lands allocated and not 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics.

Potentially adverse impacts on wilderness 

characteristics would be considerably less than 

described under Alternatives A, B or C.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts are similar to those described under 

Alternative C for lands allocated and not 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics.

The magnitude of impacts on wilderness 

characteristics would be comparable to the 

environmental effects described under 

Alternative C.

4.21.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A (No Action)

No areas are specifically managed to maintain 

wilderness characteristics in the Agua Fria 

National Monument. However, primitive or 

semi-primitive non-motorized settings would 

likely be maintained due to the management 

guidelines set forth in the Monument 

Proclamation (Appendix A), by limiting 

development of new vehicle routes and roads, 

and by employing interim protective 

management prescriptions for suitable WSR 

segments along the Agua Fria River. For that 

reason, few adverse impacts to wilderness 

characteristics are anticipated. There are no 

short and long-term management actions in the 
Chapter 4

649

Agua Fria National Monument that would 

directly or indirectly impair wilderness 

characteristics on the 37,571 acres of the area 

possessing such values.

Wilderness characteristics could be unprotected, 

impaired, decline, or be foregone on up to 

186,037 acres within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area. Over a period of 10 to 20 years, 

reasonable levels of resource use and 

development, and expansion of motorized route 

systems, could adversely affect the wilderness 

characteristics of naturalness and opportunities 

for solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation experiences. Without specific 

management actions in place to maintain areas 

with wilderness characteristics, degradation of 

those characteristics could occur from motorized 

vehicle activities, grazing developments, lands 

and realty actions, utility development and 

mining. In more remote areas, wilderness 

characteristics might remain unchanged over the 

life of the plan due to a lack of motorized access.

Alternative B

Impacts in the Agua Fria National Monument 

would be the same as under Alternative A. 

Wilderness characteristics would by and large be 

maintained and remain unimpaired in the 

monument‘s backcountry management zones.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

wilderness characteristics would be maintained 

on 56,040 acres. Non-motorized and natural 

conditions free of human influences would be 

conserved. Existing opportunities for solitude 

and primitive and unconfined recreation 

experiences would be maintained. Overall, the 

allocation of wilderness characteristics would 

reduce the access of motorized users. On the 

other hand, non-motorized visitor uses would 

increase in these areas as hikers, campers, 

hunters and sightseers are attracted to protected 

and non-motorized locales. These non-motorized 

individuals would be able to recreate in a more 

natural and remote setting.

Wilderness characteristics would probably be 

maintained over the long-term for lands 

allocated as proposed WSR suitable segments, 

ACECs and ONA ACECs. Wilderness 

characteristics would probably decline, be 

impaired or be foregone over the long term on 

lands allocated to less protective resource 

management. Wilderness characteristics could 

be unprotected, impaired, decline or be foregone 

on over 129,997 acres within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area in areas not afforded 

protection of their wilderness characteristics.

Over a period of 10 to 20 years, reasonable 

levels of resource use and development, and 

expansion of motorized route systems, could 

adversely affect the wilderness characteristics of 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation 

experiences. Without specific management 

actions in place to maintain areas with 

wilderness characteristics, degradation of those 

characteristics could occur from motorized 

vehicle activities, grazing developments, lands 

and realty actions and mining. In more remote 

areas, wilderness characteristics would probably 

remain unchanged over the life of the plan due 

to a lack of access coupled with effective OHV 

route designations, increased OHV education 

and signing, and strict OHV law enforcement 

practices.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except 107,843 acres of land would be managed 

to maintain wilderness characteristics. Nonmotorized users would benefit more than under 

Alternative B as additional lands are allocated to 

maintaining wilderness characteristics. The loss 

of wilderness characteristics could be potentially 

less under Alternative C than other alternatives, 

but could still range up to 78,194 acres over the 

long term. Impacts on the lands not allocated 

for wilderness character management are fully 

described under Alternatives A and B.

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C, 

except 140,235 acres would be managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. This 

includes 102,664 acres in the Bradshaw-
Chapter 4

650

Harquahala planning area and 37,571 acres in 

the Agua Fria National Monument. This 

Alternative would designate some of the areas 

described under Alternatives B and C as ONA 

ACECs. Wilderness characteristics would also 

be afforded long-term protection in those ONA 

ACECs through the application of protective 

prescriptions. Impacts on Special Area 

Designations are described in Section 4.21.1.

Wilderness values could be unprotected, 

degraded or lost on 83,373 acres, as described 

under Alternatives A and B.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except 88,179 acres would be managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics, including 

20,900 acres in the Agua Fria National 

Monument. Non-motorized users would benefit 

more than under Alternative B, but less than 

under Alternatives C and D. Wilderness values 

could be unprotected, degraded or lost on about 

118,758acres as comprehensively described 

under Alternatives A and B.

4.22 Impacts on 

Social and Economic 

Conditions

The management actions for the resources that 

are described for each of the Alternatives would 

result in both social and economic impacts to 

people and businesses in and next to the 

planning areas. In many instances social and 

economic effects considerably overlap. In 

general, the greatest effect would be economic, 

since in most cases the actions described for the 

Alternatives would not have major social effects 

in the planning area. The economic base profile 

completed for this analysis considers socioeconomic impacts to be most critical in 

recreation, livestock grazing, minerals, and lands 

and corridors.

BLM has collaborated with the public and local 

communities in developing Alternatives and a 

number of management actions have been 

incorporated into the Alternatives to address 

public concerns. For this reason, substantial 

adverse social or economic impacts are not 

expected.

4.22.1 Planning Area 

Growth and Development

The analysis of social and economic impacts is 

partially based on land use modeling completed 

for BLM for the planning areas (Blueline 

Consulting Group 2004). The model uses one 

set of assumptions to determine which land 

would likely have residential growth between 

the years 2000 and 2025. While limited to one 

set of assumptions, four modeling analyses 

varied the vacant land base available to receive 

the growth according to the BLM's land 

disposition Alternatives. The detailed 

methodology, including assumptions, appears in 

Appendix M.

Growth in and next to the planning areas would 

continue to affect the resources on BLM's land.

Much of the development is likely to occur on 

lands that the Arizona State Land Department 

(ASLD) might sell for private 

development. However, this analysis assumed 

(for purposes of this RMP) that no ASLD land 

in the planning areas would be developed. This 

assumption was made because the future 

legislative framework governing State land 

transactions is uncertain (including the potential 

for the exchange of land between the ASLD and 

the Federal Government).

According to Blueline Consulting Group GIS 

models, future development in 2005–2025 

would occur on lands that are closer to BLM's 

lands, compared to the time period 1985–2005, 

when residential land was developed around and 

to the east of the Interstate 17 corridor. Both 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties would 

experience continued rapid growth. A small 

portion of eastern La Paz County is included in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, but 

that part of the county is relatively undeveloped 
Chapter 4

651

and is expected to experience limited growth 

through 2025. 

In Maricopa County a large proportion of 

development in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area would occur on both sides of

U.S. Route 60, north and east of the White 

Tank Mountains, extending to State Route 74 on 

the north. In Yavapai County, a large proportion 

of development would be along State Route 69.

Yavapai County would grow at a more rapid rate 

(70 percent) than Maricopa County (54 percent) 

during the planning period but would add fewer 

persons (140,000) than Maricopa County 

(1,954,000) through 2025. Although Yavapai 

County has a large amount of land available for 

development, development on BLM's land to be 

disposed of under the Alternatives would occur 

on the lands that are nearer to Yavapai County‘s 

current population centers (as described for the 

growth projection model prepared for this 

analysis).

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, BLM would 

dispose of large tracts of land, which would be 

available for development. Each of these tracts 

of BLM's land is next to large tracts of State 

land, which this analysis assumed would not be 

developed. Analysis of land disposal also 

assumed the following:

the land would be disposed of within the 

life of the plan, 

the land would be developed mainly for 

residential use, and 

other uses such as commercial and light 

industrial development could also occur. 

Population changes could result from increased 

or decreased economic activity and from 

changes in amenity values, including mining, 

ranching, and recreational opportunities, which 

might increase employment in the managed 

areas. The changes in population, if any, would 

have the most impact on the smaller 

unincorporated places in the planning area, such 

as Salome-Wenden, Dewey-Humboldt-Mayer, 

and Black Canyon City.

Potential effects from growth and 

development might be seen in the loss of 

ranching and the related western lifestyle.

Potential effects might occur in: 

the change in social leadership structure 

resulting from increases in urban values 

and 

reduced ranching resulting from changes 

in allowable grazing.

This effect could be viewed as both social and 

economic.

The most likely economic effects from 

management would result from the following:

changes in recreation visitation levels in 

both planning areas, 

mining in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, and 

ranching activities near communities. 

Alternative A (No Action)

Recreation-Related Impacts

Recreation visitation levels are expected to 

increase from any action that enhances the 

quality of recreation experiences or creates more 

facilities or improved access. Increased 

visitation would be reflected in greater 

expenditures for goods and services in the local 

and regional economies. Greater expenditures, 

in turn, would tend to encourage added business 

activity and population growth. Growth in 

business would, in turn, stimulate construction.

The designation of the Agua Fria National 

Monument would most likely result in some 

increased visitor use to the monument and to 

surrounding areas, particularly given the 

monument‘s closeness to the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. This effect might also 

increase demand for use of BLM's land next to 

and near the monument as activities that might 

be less available in the monument place greater 

demands on surrounding BLM's lands.
Chapter 4

652

In general, use of BLM's land in the planning 

areas for a variety of purposes would continue to 

increase as the population of Maricopa and 

Yavapai Counties, and Arizona as a whole, 

continues to increase. This analysis assumes 

that 70 percent of visitors to the planning areas 

would come from these counties and that this 

percentage would remain constant throughout 

the life of the plan. Additionally, visitation to

the planning areas is expected to increase by the 

rate of the population growth in these counties, 

which is 55 percent by 2025 (Andereck and 

others 2002).

In addition to a continued overall increased 

interest in recreation, growth would also 

economically affect local communities. A 

continuation of current access and availability of 

trails for a variety of recreational purposes 

would yield continued economic benefit to the 

communities that provide services compatible 

with recreation. These services include eating 

and drinking places, OHV sales and repair 

businesses, horse boarding and tack businesses, 

campgrounds, and RV parks. These businesses 

are part of the services and trade industries, 

which in earnings and employment continue to 

be two of the dominant industries in the 

planning areas. Continued support of growth 

trends for these sectors of the economy would 

benefit communities such as Black Canyon City, 

the Salome/Wenden area, Prescott, Wickenburg, 

and Cordes Junction.

OHV use is a significant form of recreation on 

BLM's lands, as discussed in Section 3.15.5.

Access for these users would continue to impact 

the OHV industry, especially in Yavapai and 

Maricopa Counties. OHV recreation currently 

accounts for more than $2 billion per year in 

economic impact in these counties. The Gross 

Metropolitan Product (GMP) of greater Phoenix 

ranked 15th in the country with GMP equal to 

$140.8 billion, and growing about 9% annually 

(http://www.gpec.org/infocenter). A two billion 

dollar contribution by the total OHV industry 

represents 1.4% of this figure. Not all of this, of 

course, can be attributed to actual OHV use on 

public lands. The overall economic importance 

of OHV, which includes driving on back roads, 

sightseeing, hiking/walking, picnicking, and 

camping indicated in a 2002 study, ―The 

Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle 

Recreation‖ by Jonathan Silberman, PhD, 

Arizona State University West;‖ that there was a 

total of 12,224,707 OHV user days in Arizona. 

In Maricopa County, there were over 2 million 

OHV days resulting in over 13,000 full and parttime jobs, OHV expenditures of $1,358.1 

million, salaries and wages of $428.9 million 

and state tax revenues of $78.5 million. In 

Yavapai County there were almost 1,200,000 

OHV days resulting in over 2,000 full and parttime jobs, OHV expenditures of $183.0 million, 

salaries and wages of $43.9 million, and state 

tax revenues of $9.2 million. In La Paz County 

there were 344,550 OHV days resulting in 459 

full and part-time jobs, OHV expenditures of 

$44.1 million, salaries and wages of $8.3 

million, and state tax revenues of $1.9 million. 

BLM in conjunction with other land 

jurisdictions contributes greatly to these 

statistics, but there have not been any studies on 

economic impacts resulting from single OHV 

type events, in particular race event that include 

from 75 to 200 participants, where most 

participants travel from distant locations, camp 

on site, and bring most of their supplies (food, 

vehicle parts, etc.) with them.

OHV use has a substantial economic impact in 

Arizona due to the large numbers of users and 

OHVs. On the other hand, sanctioned motorized 

competitive events on public lands can not be 

construed to be a large part of this equation due 

to the small number of citizens involved with 

these activities, relative to the large number of 

casual users. Assuredly, there are beneficial 

economic impacts from the purchase of supplies, 

fuel, food, and lodging in nearby communities 

by event participants, but this can not be 

quantified to any measurable degree with current 

information. One figure used recently is $125 

spending per participant or spectator per day, for 

an average of 200 to 500 participants per event. 

This benefit, however, is smaller in the field or 

the communities as many participants are selfcontained and there are no towns or 

communities near by where events are 

conducted. The economic benefits would 

probably be greater and be more noticeable in 

smaller communities like Black Canyon City, 
Chapter 4

653

Tonopah or Wickenburg as opposed to large 

cities within the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

Continued use of BLM's lands by equestrian 

users would also benefit local economies that 

cater to this group, as discussed in Section

3.15.5. For example, the impact from the horse 

industry on the broader Wickenburg area 

economy is about $14 million (Beattie and 

others 2001).

In the long term, as recreation continues to 

increase through a variety of uses in the 

planning areas, resource conditions could 

deteriorate to some extent. As a result, the need 

for management of the area to monitor and 

protect the resources would increase.

Ranching, Agriculture, and Livestock 

Production-Related Impacts

Farming and ranching have historically been 

significant contributors to the Arizona 

economy. In recent years, extensive increases in 

population and urbanization in and near the 

planning areas have resulted in loss of 

agricultural land and increased conflicts with 

farm and ranch operations.

Livestock production resulting from grazing 

leases on BLM's land is an economic contributor 

to the local economy in the planning areas. The 

planning areas have 106 allotments with 932,950

acres of BLM's land that would continue to be 

open to grazing under current management.

About 8,100 cattle, 2,470 sheep, 75 goats, and 

87 horses are now grazing on BLM's allotments.

Changes in allowable grazing could affect 

ranchers in the planning areas. The magnitude of 

this effect is related to the economic viability 

and scale of existing ranches. An in-depth study 

of local ranching economics was not a part of 

the planning process. Because census data 

aggregates employment data for ranching with 

that for all agriculture, forestry, and 

fisheries, effects to this sector cannot be 

analyzed using employment data.

However, factors such as livestock production 

on BLM's land can be evaluated. The following 

impacts were based on this evaluation.

Prohibiting grazing in the Larry Canyon ACEC 

(which is currently inaccessible to cattle) in 

Agua Fria National Monument has minimal 

impact on livestock production. The number of 

livestock in the remainder of the planning areas 

would remain unchanged. Therefore, under 

current management the economic impacts of 

livestock production would not change.

Minerals-Related Impacts

A ―RFD scenario,‖ as required by BLM's 

Instruction Memorandum 2004-089, has been 

prepared to describe potential mineral resource 

development. This scenario forecasts the type of 

mineral development that might reasonably 

occur under No Action. It also provides a means 

of evaluating the impacts of management actions 

under the other Alternatives.

Actions that increase mining would tend to 

stimulate the local and regional economies 

through (1) increased employment and (2) 

increased demand for goods and services for the 

mine itself. The duration of this effect would 

depend upon the size of the mineral deposits and 

market demand for the products. Conversely, 

actions that either eliminate or discourage 

mining; or preclude new mining would tend to 

decrease, or at least not increase local and 

regional activity.

Agua Fria National Monument is closed to all 

forms of mineral entry. Minerals development 

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

involves mainly saleable materials.

Locatable Minerals

In this Alternative, the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area would generally be left open to 

mineral location and development. BLM would 

continue to administer mining of locatable 

minerals on a case-by-case basis. Unless 

otherwise allocated, scattered lands and other 

Federal minerals outside the planning area are 

open to mineral location and development.
Chapter 4

654

Should prices of locatable minerals reach a level 

that makes it feasible to begin exploration or 

reopen mines in this area, there would be a 

positive economic impact in mining employment 

and earnings. The extent of that impact would 

not be known until the scope of the activity is 

determined in the future.

A social element has emerged in the last few 

years associated with the recreational aspects of 

prospecting for gold. Numerous prospecting 

clubs have formed with thousands of members 

dedicated to weekend casual exploration for 

gold. These clubs hold many mining claims 

within the planning area and have regular club 

events dedicated to finding nuggets of gold and 

having fun. Though the contribution to local 

economies from these clubs and events are 

relatively small, businesses have begun to cater 

to their needs and support their social structures.

Continuation of motorized access in this 

Alternative would allow continued use by these 

groups, and the possibility of expansion to new 

areas.

Saleable Minerals

Continued public sales of mineral materials in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area on a 

case-by-case basis would have some economic 

impact. Unless otherwise allocated, scattered 

lands and other Federal minerals outside the 

planning area are open to mineral material 

disposal on a case-by-case basis, with 

determinations based on consistency with 

BLM's management policies and objectives.

Generally, BLM sells saleable minerals at 

market prices. BLM would continue to issue 

free use permits to the State and to local 

communities as the need arises. The result 

would be the continued availability of materials 

that are in demand for construction throughout 

Arizona, and particularly in the Phoenix 

metropolitan area.

Private sales for landscape or decorative rock are 

expected from within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area. Sources of comparable sand and 

gravel are also available on private land 

throughout the planning area. Many of the 

private land sources are closer to markets than 

the BLM's sources. Therefore, the impact of 

mineral material sales is expected to be slight. 

The No-Action Alternative would not affect 

saleable mineral extraction and the use of these 

commodities.

Leasable Minerals

There are no known viable sources of leasable 

minerals in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area; however, all land in the area is now open 

to mineral leasing, except surface occupancy for 

oil/gas development is prohibited under current 

management in riparian areas of the Bumble Bee 

and Williams Mesa MRMAs, and the 

Hassayampa River RMA. This analysis assumes 

that over the 20-year term of the RMP up to two 

holes would be drilled for producing commercial 

amounts of gas and oil. Since the planning area 

has limited identified opportunities for mineral 

leasing, no measurable economic impacts are 

expected to result from exploration or 

development of leasable minerals except for 

potential areas that might be explored north of 

the planning area but within the Phoenix 

District's boundary. 

Should exploration or development of leasable 

resources be pursued, the economic impact of 

the production of new wells for oil and 

gas would be determined once the scale of the 

operation could be more specifically 

established. Special stipulations would be 

incorporated into the lease agreement after the 

results of site-specific environmental 

assessments for each action are known.

Economic benefits would be seen from the 

production of new wells, which could potentially 

result in jobs and revenue for the area in which 

the wells are drilled.

Lands and Corridors-Related Impacts

Under current management nearly 54,370 acres 

would be available for disposal. 

Until a disposal or exchange occurs, social or 

economic impacts of the action cannot be easily 
Chapter 4

655

determined. Generally, increased development 

on the lands proposed for development would 

affect the rural lifestyle that many in the area 

moved there to enjoy. Increased traffic, the 

need for more public services such as roads and 

additional utilities, and a loss of rural lifestyle 

would likely result. Areas that typically have 

large lots and open spaces would likely be 

developed at higher densities. Potential 

increased development would provide added 

economic opportunities, including an increased 

tax base for the community and employment 

from new businesses. However, the disposition 

of BLM's land would not be a significant 

growth-inducing action since much of the 

planning area is growing rapidly and would 

continue to grow, independent of any BLM's 

land disposal actions in the future.

Based on the modeling conducted by Blueline 

Consulting Group, any land proposed for 

disposal along the Interstate 17 corridor in both 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties would likely be 

developed into residential neighborhoods during 

the life of the plan. The residential development 

would lie next to or within 10 miles of Agua 

Fria National Monument and/or the management 

units along the interstate corridor. The areas that 

would be most affected by the land disposal 

and potential growth are the Dewey-HumboldtMayer area and the area south of Agua Fria 

National Monument near Black Canyon City.

Residents of these two areas are likely to 

intensively and frequently use nearby BLM's 

lands. For example, the demand for resources 

such as decorative rock would come from such 

areas and resources available near the Interstate 

17 corridor are more likely to be used.

However, until a known parcel is proposed 

for disposal or exchange, it is difficult to 

determine the specific social or economic impact 

of the action and possible subsequent 

development.

Continued growth and development, along with 

opportunities for locating future infrastructure 

needed for this development, would be 

supported by retaining the multi-use utility and 

transportation corridor that includes the 

Interstate 17 right-of-way and other utility 

lines. The corridor also includes the eight 

multiple-use corridors along existing rights-ofway designated in the Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan (BLM 1983). 

Opportunities to provide ample corridors would 

support the region‘s increased growth. The 

availability of corridors would present the 

opportunity for construction jobs should 

transmission lines, pipelines, or other facilities 

be built in the corridors. These jobs might 

benefit smaller communities close to the 

proposed corridors. Utility projects that would 

be developed within a utility corridor could have 

a profound effect on the economic sustainability 

of a region. Large energy transmission projects 

are extremely important in maintaining regional

residential and commercial growth and 

development.

Development of utility projects are often 

controversial in nearby communities for reasons 

of visibility of the utility facilities and potential 

safety issues both during construction and long 

term operations. Mitigations for these impacts 

are developed as a consequence of site specific 

project analysis and could include, but not be 

limited to; siting to minimize visibility from 

communities; siting to minimize access to 

facilities from communities; design features to 

minimize visibility of the facilities similar to 

those described under impacts to visual 

resources.

Alternative B

Recreation-Related Impacts

Alternative B would offer and encourage 

developed and primitive recreation in both 

planning areas. Protecting biological and 

cultural resources would enhance the quality of 

the recreation experience and increase 

visitation. Increased access to cultural resource 

areas and developing of interpretive media 

would also increase public interest and 

visitation. More active management of 

visitation is intended to enhance the quality of 

the recreation experience and; therefore, is 
Chapter 4

656

expected to increase visitation. Trail building 

and developing facilities for horses and pack 

animals are expected to increase demand.

Alternative B would meet the needs of both 

motorized and non-motorized recreation 

and would tend to increase overall recreation 

demand more than the other Alternatives.

Route modeling for Alternative B found that this 

Alternative would designate 2,086 miles of 

routes. As under Alternative A, a continuation 

of current access and availability of trails for a 

variety of recreational purposes would 

economically benefit businesses that provide 

services compatible with recreation and support 

the services and trade industries of the 

economy. 

Alternative B proposes eight SCRMAs and nine 

SRMAs which would increase visitor use in the 

planning area where they are allocated and 

developed for public use. This would further 

benefit businesses that serve visitors.

Alternative B proposes one area where lands are 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

and one WHA. These areas are designed to 

protect the area‘s primitive nature and allow for 

more non-motorized types of recreation on a 

more limited basis, than more active types of 

uses allowed under SRMAs. Nonetheless, these 

areas are open to recreation use and would 

attract visitors to the area, again benefiting 

economic sectors that support recreation.

Communities such as Black Canyon City, the 

Salome/Wenden area, Prescott, Wickenburg, and 

Cordes Junction provide local services to 

recreationists and would continue to benefit 

under Alternative B.

Alternative B proposes Bloody Basin Road, in 

Agua Fria National Monument and Constellation 

Mine Road near Wickenburg as Back Country 

byways. These designations would have an 

effect on recreation and visitor uses similar 

to the designation of Agua Fria National 

Monument; identifying them as ―special‖ and 

attracting a certain population for that reason.

Long term impacts of recreation use would be 

the same as those listed under Alternative A. 

The social and economic impacts of OHV would 

remain as described under Alternative A.

Ranching, Agriculture, and Livestock 

Production-Related Impacts

The number of allotments and livestock grazing 

on BLM's land under Alternative B would be the 

same as under Alternative A. Since grazing in 

riparian areas would be limited to winter 

(November 1 to March 1), grazing would likely 

decline but socio-economic impacts would not 

measurably differ from current management.

Impacts from allocating eight SCRMAs cannot 

be determined until the areas are defined and 

specific actions are selected. Should areas be 

restricted from grazing or fenced for protection, 

livestock production may decrease. 

Minerals-Related Impacts

Management actions under Alternative B would 

be more encouraging to mineral exploration and 

mining than Alternatives C, D, or E for the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. Thus, 

Alternative B would tend to generate more 

mining and greater stimulate local and regional 

economies than would the other action 

Alternatives, assuming that mining does 

not conflict with recreational opportunities or 

visitation demand.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, VRM standards would be established, 

with potential ramifications to mining. The 

increased cost of compliance with VRM 

standards might move the impacts from public 

lands to nearby State or private lands. Overall, 

the impact to local economies would be low and 

mining would be expected to remain at current 

levels.

The evaluation of proposed mining would 

consider mining's effect on biological and 

cultural resources. This Alternative is not 

expected to degrade the quality of the visitor's 

experience, to impact casual use miners, or 

prospecting club activities.
Chapter 4

657

Locatable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A,

except the 640 acre Tule Creek ACEC would be 

closed to mineral location and development. As 

under Alternative A, an increase in prices of 

locatable minerals would possibly make it 

feasible to begin exploration or to reopen mines 

in the planning area, economically benefiting 

mining employment and earnings. The extent of 

that impact would not be known until the scope 

of the activity is determined. These activities 

would most likely occur in the northern part of 

the planning area, affecting communities such as 

Wickenburg, Yarnell, and Black Canyon City.

The greatest impact to mining would potentially 

come from VRM. For locatable minerals, 

allowing mining is a nondiscretionary action 

outside of areas closed to mining. However, 

compliance with VRM standards would be 

imposed through rehabilitation standards.

Higher costs of mine closure might be borne by 

mining companies, and in some cases the 

portion of bonds returned might be lower. Labor 

and material cost of increased rehabilitation 

could extend the economic benefits of mining to 

local communities if the labor and materials are 

purchased there.

Saleable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A,

except Alternative B would close to mineral 

material disposal Tule Creek ACEC and one

area allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area. This would somewhat limit the 

potential sites for mining saleable minerals.

However, since locations for this mining are 

unknown, the potential economic impact is also 

unknown but it is expected to be negligible.

Leasable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, 

except Tule Creek ACEC would be closed to 

mineral leasing. This would have a negligible 

impact since the planning area has limited 

identified opportunities for mineral leasing.

Lands and Corridors-Related Impacts

Impacts and assumptions of analysis would be 

similar to Alternative A, except that 58,400 acres 

would open to disposal. The 58,400 acres are 

scattered throughout the planning area and 

would mainly affect the communities of Dewey, 

Humboldt, Mayer, and Goodyear for future 

potential development.

Impacts of utility and transportation corridors 

would also be similar to Alternative A.

Alternative C

Recreation-Related Impacts

Alternative C would favor primitive over 

developed recreation in Agua Fria National 

Monument, where visitor access would be more 

limited than under Alternatives A or B. The 

number of commercial and guide/outfitter 

permits in the monument would possibly be half 

of those issued under Alternative B. Public 

access to cultural resources would also be more 

limited than under Alternatives A or B.

Public access in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area would be more restrictive than 

would the Alternatives A or B, and so 

would tend to reduce visitation and visitor 

spending. Biological and cultural resources 

would be better protected than under 

Alternatives A and B, thus somewhat raising the 

quality of the recreation experience. However, 

limiting visitor access would reduce the number 

of people able to enjoy the experience.

The number of SRMAs--which allow more 

active recreation--would increase visitor use and 

would benefit businesses that serve visitors. The 

planning area would be better protected for nonmotorized uses by the following actions:

reducing SCRMAs to four, 

increasing lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics, and 

applying restrictions that would result 

from designating 11 ACECs. 
Chapter 4

658

Overall the restrictions would reduce visitor use 

in the planning areas and economic benefits of 

recreation and visitation would be lower than 

under Alternatives A or B, but greater than under 

Alternative D. 

Alternative C would designate 1,915 miles of 

routes. Access and availability of trails for a 

variety of recreational purposes would result in 

continued economic benefits to the communities 

that provide services compatible with 

recreation. Communities such as Black Canyon 

City, the Salome/Wenden area, Prescott, 

Wickenburg, and Cordes Junction provide local 

services to recreationists and would continue to 

benefit.

Impacts of proposing Bloody Basin Road in 

Agua Fria National Monument and Constellation 

Mine Road near Wickenburg as Back Country 

byways would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B.

Long term impacts of recreation use would be 

the same as Alternative A. Even though 

recreation use, especially motorized, would be

more restricted in some of the planning area 

under Alternative C, the popularity and growth 

curve of this recreation activity, and its 

associated local and regional economic impacts 

from the purchase, sale, servicing and fueling of 

off-highway equipment, would remain 

essentially as described under Alternative A.

Users would have slightly fewer routes and areas 

in which to ride and reduced opportunities for 

different landscape-based experiences. 

Additionally, motorized recreation activities 

would be more concentrated and intense as users 

shift to available locales.

Ranching, Agriculture, and Livestock 

Production-Related Impacts

Alternative C would prohibit grazing in riparian 

areas, reducing the number of allotments to 

43, and allowing for more than 4,300 cattle to 

continue grazing on BLM's land. This would 

affect local areas and ranchers whose grazing 

allotments would be eliminated or reduced to the 

point that their businesses would no longer be 

viable. The difference between the impacts of 

Alternatives A and C on the regional 

economy would be minimal.

Minerals-Related Impacts

Mining would still be open in most areas but 

with substantial restrictions in lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics and 

ACECs. Impacts from this management 

action would be similar to Alternative A.

Impacts would be less than Alternative B and 

greater than Alternative D.

Locatable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A except 

for the closure to mineral location and 

development in three ACECs and riparian areas.

As a result, there could be some economic 

limitations should suitable areas for mining be 

found where mining is prohibited.

Casual use miners and prospecting clubs could 

continue conducting their activities; however, 

route closures or limitations could make it more 

difficult, or potentially more expensive, if clubs 

are required to be responsible for maintaining 

access to their claims. Road work and 

reclamation bonds may be required.

Impacts from VRM would increase compared to 

those under Alternative B, but be less than 

impacts under Alternative D.

Saleable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A,

except ACECs and lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be closed to 

mineral material disposal. As in Alternative B, 

this would somewhat limit the availability of 

potential sites for mining saleable minerals.

Since locations for this mining are unknown, the 

potential economic impact is also unknown but 

expected to be negligible.

Leasable Minerals
Chapter 4

659

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, 

except mineral leasing would be prohibited in 

four ACECs in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area and on scattered lands outside the 

planning area. Since the planning area has a low 

potential for leasable mineral production, no 

measurable economic impacts are expected.

Lands and Corridors-Related Impacts

Alternative C considers two options for land 

disposal:

Under Option One, a total of 600 acres of land 

would be available for disposal. This analysis 

assumed that these acres would be developed for 

residential use within the life of the plan. Since 

there is limited disposal or exchange under 

Option One, the impacts would be similar to 

those under Alternative D for land disposal.

Under Option Two, a total of 49,100 acres 

would be disposed of or exchanged. The lands 

are scattered throughout the planning area, 

mainly in the unincorporated areas of Yavapai 

and Maricopa Counties. A number of acres are 

located in the Yarnell area, which would provide 

a potential opportunity for low-density 

residential use if the lands were acquired for 

private purposes. Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative A. 

Impacts of retaining the multi-use utility and 

transportation corridor that includes the 

Interstate 17 right-of-way would be similar to 

Alternative A, except that the corridor would be 

narrowed to move it out of Agua Fria National 

Monument. The opportunities provided by the 

corridors would continue to support increased 

growth in the region.

Alternative D

Recreation-Related Impacts

Alternative D is intended to put more emphasis 

on non-motorized recreation than the other 

Alternatives, by devoting the greatest area to 

non-motorized recreation and closing the most 

area to vehicular access. This 

Alternative would place stricter limitations 

on public access to cultural resources than any 

other. No motorized competitive races would be 

authorized. Visitation and OHV uses would 

decline in the planning area, resulting in 

somewhat lower visitor spending in the local and 

regional economies.

To the degree that this loss is not offset by an 

increase in non-motorized use, visitation for 

recreation would be lower than under the other 

Alternatives. The economic stimulus to the 

local and regional economies would also be 

lower. To the degree that the decline is offset by 

increased non-motorized recreation, the 

difference between the impacts of Alternative D

and the other Alternatives would not be so great.

Alternative D would designate 1,707 miles of 

routes in the planning areas, the fewest miles 

under any of the Alternatives. Access to BLM's 

lands would continue to exist, and trails could be 

used for a variety of recreational purposes.

However, trails would be more limited than 

under the other Alternatives. Alternative D

could result in fewer economic benefits to the 

communities which provide services compatible 

with recreation.

The reduced number of SRMAs, which allow 

more active recreation, would affect visitor use 

and have a smaller impact on businesses that 

serve recreationists. Alternative D would create 

more protection for other non-motorized 

recreation uses in the planning area through the 

following actions:

reducing the number of SCRMAs to 

two, 

increasing the number of areas allocated 

to maintain wilderness characteristics to 

six, and 

restricting access by designating eight 

ACECs. 

Overall, these measures would reduce visitor use 

in the planning area.

Communities such as Black Canyon City, the 

Salome/Wenden area, Prescott, Wickenburg, and 
Chapter 4

660

Cordes Junction provide local services to 

recreationists and would continue to benefit.

However, benefits could possibly be less than 

under Alternative C.

Overall, economic impacts from recreation 

would be slightly lower than Alternative C, with 

moderate reductions in economic contributions 

from motorized recreation, in the form of 

reduced services, equipment sales and fuel 

needs. Like the OHV dealers say: ―no trails, no 

sales‖. Recreation use, especially motorized, 

would be more restricted or eliminated in much 

of the planning area under Alternative D. The 

lack of areas and trails could diminish the 

popularity and, until now, the endless growth 

curve of motorized recreation activities, along 

with its associated local and regional economic 

effects. Users would have far fewer routes and 

areas in which to ride and reduced opportunities 

for different landscape-based experiences. 

Motorized recreation activity areas would be 

more concentrated and intense as users shift to 

available locales

Ranching, Agriculture, and Livestock

Production-Related Impacts

Alternative D would make BLM-managed lands

unavailable for livestock grazing. This 

prohibition would significantly affect holders of 

grazing leases and local economies, reducing 

livestock production in the State. In 2002 a total 

of 36,000 head of cattle were raised in Maricopa 

and Yavapai Counties. A reduction of 8,000 

head would reduce livestock production in the 

two counties by 20 percent.

Minerals-Related Impacts

Alternative D, with its emphasis on natural 

landscapes and primitive recreation 

opportunities, would be the most restrictive to 

mining. Both exploration and development 

would be strictly limited. This Alternative 

would tend to more or less eliminate mining via 

attrition over the duration of the plan. It would 

also reduce mining-related additions to the local 

and regional economies. No one knows whether 

this effect on local and regional economies 

would be offset by additions caused by 

visitation.

Locatable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C, 

except that the areas closed to mineral location 

and development would be the greatest under 

this Alternative. As a result, economic 

opportunity would be limited to a greater extent 

than under other Alternatives, especially if 

suitable sites were identified for areas where no 

mining would be allowed.

Impacts from VRM would increase under this 

Alternative as compared with Alternative B

because more acreage would be classified as 

VRM I and II.

Saleable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C,

except the closure to mineral material disposal 

of a number of ACECs and lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics would limit 

the availability of potential sites for mining 

saleable minerals more than any of the other 

Alternatives. However, locations for this mining 

are unknown, so the potential economic impact 

is also unknown. It is estimated that short term 

demand would continue to be met with 

production on both Federal and non-Federal 

lands. As the population continues to grow and 

demand increases, future demand may not be 

met and increased costs of importing building 

material would result in increased building costs 

in all parts of the economy.

Leasable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, 

except mineral leasing would be prohibited in a 

number of ACECs and lands allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. Since the 

planning area has a low potential for leasable 

mineral production, measurable economic 

impacts are not expected.

Lands and Corridors-Related Impacts
Chapter 4

661

Under Alternative D, no BLM land would be 

available for disposal. As stated previously, the 

disposition of BLM's land would not be a 

significant growth-inducing action, and 

so Alternative D would have no measurable 

impacts.

The unavailability of land as a result of no 

disposal does present a potentially positive 

social impact on the planning area, in that it 

would contribute to preserving the current rural 

lifestyle throughout much of the planning area.

The proposed reduction in the level of corridors 

under Alternative D would support continued 

economic development and growth in the 

region. Alternative D would somewhat 

constrain the citing of potential utilities in the 

corridors in the future, but their allocated 

corridors should be sufficient to meet local 

demand.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Recreation-Related Impacts

Alternative E would favor primitive recreation 

opportunities over developed opportunities in 

the Agua Fria National Monument. Visitor 

access would be more limited than under 

Alternatives A, B, or C. However, visitor 

services and opportunities for structured or 

developed recreation would be greater than 

under Alternative D. The RMP would not set 

the number of commercial permits and 

guide/outfitter permits in the monument. This 

number would be determined by monitoring 

resource conditions. Users could thus determine 

the limits for SRPs because resource conditions 

depend on social behaviors. If visitors use 

existing disturbances and take care not to expand 

them or degrade the quality of the surroundings, 

the capacity to support SRPs of many kinds 

would be higher than if visitors are inconsiderate 

of the land.

Public access to cultural resources in the Agua 

Fria National Monument area would also be 

more limited than under Alternatives A, B, and C 

because more routes would be 

closed; nevertheless, more routes would be 

designated as open than under Alternative D.

Visitation is expected to shift from people 

desiring a motorized experience to people 

desiring a non-motorized experience. This shift 

is expected to reduce total visitation to the 

monument and result in somewhat lower 

visitation-related spending in the local and 

regional economies.

Public access would be restricted in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area more than 

Alternative B, but less than Alternatives C and 

D. Visitation and visitor spending are likely to 

be lower for this Alternative than for 

Alternatives A and B, but higher than for 

Alternatives C and D. The effect of this 

restriction would be most pronounced in the 

Harquahala MU, where most ACECs and lands 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

are located, although this MU now receives 

relatively low visitation. 

Vehicle routes that would be designated as open 

are expected to accommodate use at current 

levels. Increased opportunities for nonmotorized experiences in natural primitive 

landscapes might increase overall visitation, but 

the types of new users attracted to the area are 

not expected to greatly increase visitor spending 

in the local and regional economies.

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

outside of the Harquahala MU, Alternative E

would be similar to Alternative C. Allocating 

SRMAs to develop facilities and manage more 

intensive recreation, especially for motorized 

uses, would somewhat concentrate those 

activities. The improved facilities could attract 

more users to areas managed for more intensive 

recreation but might also cause people looking 

for a less-structured location to move to new 

areas. Overall, use is expected to increase where 

motorized users are managed and access is 

maintained. User satisfaction would also 

improve, along with opportunities for citizen 

stewardship. The Black Canyon, Castle Hot 

Springs, and Hassayampa MUs would 

experience most of the change resulting from 

these management actions. Overall, the 
Chapter 4

662

economic benefits of recreation under 

Alternative E are expected to be lower than 

under Alternatives A, B, and C, but greater than 

under Alternative D.

Route modeling for the Proposed Alternative 

indicates 2,067 miles of route might be 

designated. The route network is expected to be 

similar to that modeled under Alternative B. A 

continuation of current access and availability of 

trails for a variety of recreational purposes 

would result in continued economic benefits to 

the communities that provide services 

compatible with recreation.

Under Alternative E six SCRMAs would contain 

sites allocated to public use, which 

would have impacts similar to Alternative B.

The increase in areas allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics and the restrictions 

that would result from designating four ACECs 

would better protect the planning area for other 

non-motorized uses. These restrictions might 

reduce, or at least cap at current levels, visitor 

use in the vicinity of the allocations and 

designations.

Communities such as Black Canyon City, the 

Salome/Wenden area, Prescott, Wickenburg, and 

Cordes Junction provide local services to 

recreationists and would continue to benefit 

from recreation under Alternative E.

The Bloody Basin Road in Agua Fria National 

Monument and Constellation Mine Road near 

Wickenburg would not be considered for 

allocation as back Country byways thus impacts 

would be similar to those under Alternative A.

OHV would continue to be a significant form of 

recreation on BLM's lands, as discussed in 

Section 3.15.5, with similar impacts to those 

described in Alternatives A and B. Access for 

these users would continue to impact the OHV 

industry, especially in Yavapai and Maricopa 

Counties. OHV recreation currently accounts 

for more than $2 billion per year in economic 

impact in these counties

In the long term, as recreation continues to 

increase through a variety of uses in the 

planning area, resource conditions would 

deteriorate somewhat. Through the mix of (1) 

allocations to protect primitive landscapes and 

(2) development to manage and support 

motorized and other more intensive recreation, 

resource conditions are expected be maintained 

at current levels and to be sustainable throughout 

the life of the plans.

Ranching, Agriculture, and Livestock 

Production-Related Impacts

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except six SCRMAs would be allocated, which 

might result in areas being fenced for 

protection. The number of allotments and 

livestock grazing on BLM's land would be the 

same as under Alternative A. Since grazing in 

riparian areas would be limited to winter 

(November 1 to March 1), livestock production 

would likely decline but would not measurably 

differ from current management. Effects are 

expected to be negligible.

Minerals-Related Impacts

Management actions under Alternative E would 

be similar to those described for Alternative A, 

except that in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area the establishment of VRM 

standards would have impacts similar to those 

described for Alternative B. Overall, the impact 

to local economies would be low.

Impacts to casual miners and prospecting clubs 

are expected to be similar to Alternative B.

Locatable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except that riparian areas in reconveyed lands, 

mainly in the Black Canyon area between Black 

Canyon City and Bumblebee, would be closed to 

mineral location and development along with 

Tule Creek ACEC.

Impacts to mining from VRM would be similar 

to Alternative B, except that more acres (1,450) 
Chapter 4

663

would be allocated to VRM Class II and Class 

IV (4,730), and less acres (6,180) would be 

allocated to VRM Class III.

Impacts to casual miners and prospecting clubs 

are expected to be the same as for Alternative B.

Saleable Minerals

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A,

except Tule Creek ACEC and riparian areas in 

the planning area would be closed to mineral 

material disposal, limiting slightly the potential 

sites for mining of saleable minerals. Data on 

the potential for this material show that this 

material is generally not in the areas that would 

be closed, so impacts are expected to be 

minimal. 

As with locatable mining, VRM standards might 

affect mineral material and decorative rock 

mining. Permitting of saleable minerals is a 

discretionary action and the inability of a 

proposal to comply with VRM standards could 

be a reason to deny it. If VRM standards prove 

to be an unacceptable economic burden on the 

industry, demand is expected to be met from 

State or private sources. The environmental 

impacts (and revenues) would then shift off of 

public lands, but there would be no net change 

to the economies of local communities.

Leasable Minerals

Impacts would be the same as for Alternative B.

Lands and Corridors-Related Impacts

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, 

except a total of 38,755 acres would be available 

for disposal by sale or exchange. The lands are 

scattered throughout the planning area and 

would mainly affect the future potential 

development of the communities of Buckeye, 

Goodyear, Wickenburg, and the greater Phoenix 

area.

Impacts of utility and transportation corridors 

would be similar to Alternative A. The Black 

Canyon Utility Corridor location in the Proposed 

Alternative potentially improves long term 

economic conditions in central Arizona by 

providing a more suitable location for future

utility development than the corridors analyzed 

in Alternatives A, B, C or D,. Limitations or 

constraints to energy transmission to the Greater 

Phoenix Metropolitan Area could have broad 

economic impacts. By relocating the corridor to 

be suitable for more types of utility 

development, those potential impacts could be 

avoided.

4.23 Environmental 

Justice

Executive Order 12898, ―Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations,‖ was issued in 1994.

The objective of this order was to preclude 

Federal actions from creating disproportionate 

adverse impacts to minority and low-income 

populations.

The relevant data needed to evaluate possible 

environmental justice effects (i.e. total and 

changes in minority populations and income 

levels) were presented in Section 3.16. Table 4-

9 shows HRUs and CRUs whose percentage of 

Hispanic populations and percentage of 

populations living below the federally mandated 

poverty level exceed those of their counties. 

Analysis of the data presented in Chapter 3 did 

not find that implementing any of the proposed 

Alternatives would result in disproportionate 

adverse plan-related effects on minority or lowincome groups. Nothing inherent in the 

proposed Alternatives would cause any 

statistically significant changes to ethnic 

composition of the resident populations. There 

is no indication that any of the Alternatives 

would have substantial adverse economic effects 

on any particular ethnic group or any particular 

income group as compared to others.
Chapter 4

664

4.24 Cumulative 

Impacts

Cumulative impacts are the combination of the 

effects of past, present, and future foreseeable 

actions; in combination with the effects of each 

Alternative. With a large-scale regional plan 

such as this, many of the impacts discussed 

under each topical resource area are, in essence, 

cumulative impacts. Nevertheless, NEPA 

requires that the impacts occurring in the entire 

planning area be separately and specifically 

addressed.

The future foreseeable actions would include the 

following: 

population growth in and next to the 

planning area that would increase 

residential and commercial development 

on private lands in both Yavapai and 

Maricopa Counties, 

continued grazing, 

potential minerals development, 

increased recreational uses on BLM's 

lands, 

activities on lands under the jurisdiction 

of other Federal and State agencies

reconstruction and widening of 

Interstate Highway 17. 

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 central Arizona are likely to 

continue throughout the life of the RMP.

Cumulative impacts on wildlife might include 

the loss of wildlife habitat, including Sonoran 

desert tortoise and pronghorn antelope habitat; 

and migration corridors in the planning areas 

and on adjacent Federal, State, and private lands.

This section provides information relevant to the 

cumulative impacts for each Alternative, 

including a discussion about cumulative impacts 

as they relate to Population Growth and 

Development, Recreation/Visitation, Air 

Quality, Soils, Water Resources, and Wild Horse 

and Burro Management.

Alternative A (No Action)

Population Growth and Development

As stated in Section 4.22.1, potential cumulative 

effects of growth and development may include 

(1) the loss of ranching and the related western 

lifestyle and (2) change in social leadership 

structure resulting from increases in urban 

values and reduced ranching. In general, the 

greatest effects would be related to economics, 

since the actions proposed in the Alternatives 

would not, in most cases, have major social 

impacts in the planning areas.

Under current management 54,370 acres of 

BLM's land would be available for disposal by 

sale or exchange. The disposition of BLM's 

land is not expected to be a significant growthinducing action, since much of the planning area 

is growing rapidly and would continue to grow 

independent of any BLM's land disposal in the 

future.

Therefore, Alternative A would have no 

measurable cumulative impact on growth and 

development in the State, growth in and next to 

the planning areas would continue 

to cumulatively impact resources on BLM's 

land.

The reconstruction of I-17 would facilitate 

growth of the local communities as well as the 

State as a whole.

Recreation/Visitation

The most likely cumulative effects would be 

related to changes in visitation levels in both 

planning areas. Cumulative 

impacts would include intensified use in certain 

areas, especially for motorized activities, as 

recreation increases and growth and 

development occur near recreation areas.
Chapter 4

665

General plans for the counties and area 

communities include provisions for open space, 

which is usually for parks or non-motorized 

recreation, further concentrating motorized 

activities on BLM's land.

Increased visitation is expected to result in 

increased spending for recreational goods and 

services. Communities such as Black Canyon 

City, the Salome/Wenden area, Prescott, 

Wickenburg, and Cordes Junction provide local 

services to recreationists and would continue to

benefit from recreation under the current 

management.

Reconstruction of Interstate 17 could enhance or 

restrict access to adjacent areas. A wider 

highway would create negative visual impacts as 

seen from the national monument and other 

areas.

Air Quality

The main air quality issue affecting the planning 

area is also related to forecast population growth 

in the planning area, especially the rapid growth 

in the Phoenix nonattainment areas. A 

secondary air quality issue is increased 

emissions from additional OHV use in the 

planning areas. A third cumulative impact issue 

is population increase in rural areas. 

Cumulative air quality impacts in the planning 

areas have been adequately addressed by the air 

quality nonattainment plans and air quality 

maintenance plans that MAG and ADEQ have 

been required to prepare for approval by the 

EPA as described in Section 3.4.2 Air 

Resources. These plans are required because the 

Phoenix area is already a nonattainment area for 

several air pollutants and these plans are, in 

reality, quantitative cumulative air quality 

impact assessments.

Emissions from OHVs would likely begin to 

decrease in 2006 and might offset the expected 

future increase in OHV numbers (EPA 2003).

In that case, increased OHV use would cause 

increased fugitive dust impacts immediately near 

the roads and trails on which they are driven 

and future cumulative OHV tailpipe emissions 

would probably contribute a proportionately 

smaller fraction of future regional air pollutant 

emissions.

Soils

The cumulative effects for soils would be 

generally limited to a particular site. 

Management practices in the planning areas and 

activities on private lands have led to some 

detrimental soil conditions, some of which 

persist. Additionally, as private lands continue

to be rapidly developed, especially near the 

Phoenix metropolitan area, soil 

becomes compact and displaced. As a result, 

loss of vegetation and impacts to watershed 

conditions may occur. Soil productivity in these 

areas is lost for all practical purposes.

Water Resources

The cumulative effects for water resources 

would be similar under all Alternatives.

Watersheds integrate the effects of all activities 

within their boundaries. Therefore, activities on 

private and public lands affect water resources. 

The impacts of development on soil 

cumulatively affect watershed conditions. As a 

result, many watercourses in central Arizona 

have been degraded by increased sediment load 

due to urbanization, livestock grazing, and 

recreation. Furthermore, leachate from mining 

has historically degraded water quality in the 

region. Under Alternative A, these activities 

would continue and so affect water resources.

Wild Horse and Burro Management

The Lake Pleasant HMA, containing 80,800 

acres, and the Harquahala HA, containing 

156,255 acres, are both entirely within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

The only source of cumulative effects would be 

the ability of horses and burros to move from 

one location to another in response to 

management actions or natural conditions.
Chapter 4

666

In accordance with policy found in 43 CFR 

4700.0-6, wild horses and burros shall be 

considered comparably with other resource 

values in the formulation of land use plans.

The Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Administration 

establish cumulative effects considerations 

for the threshold of significance. The total 

utilization of a rangeland must create conditions 

that meet these standards. If combined wild 

horse, burrow and livestock grazing reduce 

rangeland condition below the standard levels, 

then cumulative effects have occurred. By 

definition, cumulative effects cannot occur 

where AUM allocations are proportional.

Cumulative effects might occur on private, 

State, or other Federal lands where AUM 

allocations are not proportional, i.e., where 

horses and burros have not been part of the 

allocation formula. If horses and burros move 

onto these lands and add their grazing pressure 

to the existing levels, then the cumulative effect 

might result in a rangeland condition that is 

below standard.

Animal numbers are carefully managed in the 

Lake Pleasant HMA and the small herd sizes in 

the Harquahala HA make that herd 

unsustainable. In addition, gathered animals are 

generally moved out of the area. Therefore, 

burro management is not expected to result in 

noticeable cumulative impacts.

Alternative B

Population Growth and Development

Growth and development in and next to the 

planning areas would continue to have a 

cumulative impact on the 

resources. BLM's resources would also be 

impacted in the same manner as under Alterative 

A, except that 58,400 acres of land would be 

available for disposal by sale or exchange.

Recreation/Visitation

Cumulative impacts from recreation and 

visitation would increase over those in 

Alternative A. Alternative B is expected to 

increase visitation more than under the other 

Alternatives because:

Developed and primitive recreation 

opportunities would be available and 

encouraged in both planning areas. 

Increased access to cultural resources 

and developing interpretive media 

would increase public interest and 

visitation. 

More active visitor management would 

enhance the recreation experience. 

Visitor use in the planning areas would also 

increase in response to:

allocating more SRMAs, 

designating the Bloody Basin and 

Constellation Mine Roads as back 

country byways, and 

allocating more SCRMAs.

The trend toward non-motorized recreation in 

areas of urban development would be similar to 

that under Alternative A.

Air Quality

The cumulative impacts to air quality under 

Alternative B are expected to be similar to those 

under Alternative A. The impacts to air quality 

from construction and mineral exploration or 

development would continue at essentially the 

same magnitude as described for Alternative A, 

and would be similarly addressed by MAG in 

their air quality maintenance plans.

Recreation that would create OHV emissions 

and particulates generated in the rural areas 

would not vary significantly from those under 

Alternative A. Alternative B would reduce the 

miles of trails open to recreation by three 

percent from that under Alternative A. Areas 

open to OHV use and potential mining would be 

greater than under the other Alternatives, but the 

air quality impacts on the region would be 

minimal.

Soils
Chapter 4

667

The cumulative effects to soils under Alternative 

B are expected to be similar those under 

Alternative A.

Water Resources

The cumulative effects to water resources under 

Alternative B are expected to be similar as those 

under Alternative A.

Wild Horse and Burro Management

Cumulative impacts would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A, except that burros in 

the Harquahala HA would not be a managed 

herd, and nuisance animals and burros harming 

sensitive habitats would be removed. 

Alternative C

Population Growth and Development

Growth and development in and next to the 

planning areas would continue to have a 

cumulative impact on the resources on 

BLM resources in the same manner as under 

Alterative A, except that under Alternative C

49,100 acres of land would be available for 

disposal by sale or exchange instead of 54,370 

acres.

Recreation/Visitation

Cumulative impacts of recreation and visitation 

would decrease under Alternative C as compared 

to Alternatives A and B. This Alternative would 

favor primitive recreation opportunities over 

developed opportunities, and visitor access for 

motorized activities would be more limited.

Such restricted use is expected to reduce 

visitation because motorized use accounts for 

three of the five most popular activities in the 

planning area. This reduction; therefore, would 

somewhat lower visitation spending in the local 

and regional economies. Overall, the beneficial 

economic effects of recreation and visitation 

would be lower than under Alternatives A and B, 

but greater than under Alternative D.

Alternative C would better protect the planning 

areas for non-motorized used by:

reducing the number of SCRMAs, 

increasing areas allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics , and 

imposing motorized access restrictions 

by designating 11 ACECs. 

Air Quality

The cumulative impacts to air quality are 

expected to be similar to those under Alternative 

A.

Recreation that would generate OHV emissions 

and particulates in rural areas would not vary 

significantly from that under Alternative A 

and air quality impacts in the region would be 

minimal. Alternative C would reduce the miles 

of trails open to recreation as compared to 

Alternatives A and B. The area opened to 

potential mining would be less than Alternative 

B, but greater than under Alternative D.

Soils

The cumulative effects to soils are expected to 

be similar to those under Alternative A.

Water Resources

The cumulative effects to water resources are 

expected to be similar to those under Alternative 

A.

Wild Horse and Burro Management

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those 

for Alternative B.

Alternative D

Population Growth and Development

Under Alternative D, BLM would not dispose of 

any land. Because the disposition of BLM's 

land would not be a significant growth-inducing 
Chapter 4

668

action, cumulative impacts would be the same as 

under Alternative A.

Recreation/Visitation

Impacts from recreation would be reduced the 

most under this Alternative. Alternative D

would devote more area to non-motorized 

recreation and close more areas to vehicular 

access than would the other alternatives. The 

gradual phase-out of motorized uses in the 

Hieroglyphic Mountain and Bradshaw Foothills 

areas would change the general recreation 

setting to more non-motorized uses. Overall, 

the number of visitors to the planning area 

would be reduced, along with visitor spending.

The planning area would be better protected for 

non-motorized uses by the following actions:

reducing the number of SRMAs and 

SCRMAs, 

increasing areas allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics, and 

restricting motorized access by 

designating eight ACECs. 

Air Quality

The cumulative impacts to air quality are 

expected to be similar to those under Alternative 

A.

Recreation generating OHV emissions and 

particulates in rural areas would possibly be less 

than under Alternative A, given more restrictions 

on areas open to OHV use and competitive 

events. Alternative D would reduce the miles of 

trails open to recreation use from that under 

Alternative A, but the air quality impact on the 

region would be minimal.

Soils

The cumulative effects to soil are expected to be 

less than those under any other Alternative, 

given that recreation and mining would be more 

restricted and grazing would be prohibited.

Water Resources

The cumulative effects on water resources are 

expected to be less than those under any other 

Alternative, given that recreation and mining 

would be more restricted and grazing would be 

prohibited.

Wild Horse and Burro Management

Cumulative impacts would be the same as under 

Alternative B.

Alternative E (Proposed Alternative)

Population Growth and Development

Growth and development in and next to the 

planning areas would continue to have a 

cumulative impact on BLM's resources in the 

same manner as under Alternative A, except 

that 38,755 acres would be available for disposal 

by sale or exchange.

Recreation/Visitation

Alternative E would favor primitive over 

developed recreation in the Agua Fria National 

Monument area. Visitor access would be more 

limited than under Alternatives A, B, and C, but 

visitor services and opportunities for structured 

or developed recreation would be greater than 

under Alternative D.

Alternative E would also restrict public access in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area more 

than Alternative B, but less than Alternative C;

and would tend to reduce visitation. Alternative 

E would result in somewhat less visitor spending 

in the local and regional economies than 

Alternatives A and B, but more than C and D.

The effect of the management actions might be 

offset over time by the shear growth in 

recreation demand from population growth in 

the region.

The planning area would be better protected for 

non-motorized uses by the following actions:

reducing the number of SCRMAs, 
Chapter 4

669

increasing areas allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics, and 

restricting motorized access by 

designating four ACECs. 

Air Quality

The cumulative impacts to air quality under 

Alternative E are expected to be similar to those 

under Alternative A.

Recreation that would generate OHV emissions 

and particulates in rural areas would not vary 

significantly from that under Alternative A. The 

miles of trails open to recreation would decline 

from those under Alternative A and areas with 

routes open to OHV use would be similar to 

those under Alternative B. Areas open to mining 

would be similar to those under Alternative A.

The air quality impact on the region would be 

minimal.

Soils

The cumulative effects to soils under are 

expected to be less than those under Alternatives 

A and B because motorized recreation would be 

more restricted and fewer acres would be 

available for disposal and eventual 

development. Impacts would be more than 

those under Alternatives C and D.

Water Resources

The cumulative effects to water resources are 

expected to be less than those under Alternatives 

A and B because motorized recreation would be 

more restricted and fewer acres would be 

available for disposal and eventual 

development. Impacts would be more than 

those under Alternatives C and D.

Wild Horse and Burro Management

Cumulative impacts would be the same as under 

Alternative B.

4.25 Mitigation 

4.25.1 Mitigation for Effects 

of Routes

Mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the 

effects that travel routes may have on natural 

resources and social environments are discussed 

in the following text. The range of alternatives 

in Chapter 2 provides a spectrum of resource 

allocations and Special Designations to provide 

for broad management of resources and social 

environments. Discussion of possible mitigation 

measures employed for foreseeable resource or 

social conflicts is intended to describe the range 

of measures available to alleviate pressures on 

resources and social environments from routes 

and their use by humans. Monitoring, in some 

manner, provides the basis for determining the 

need and the eventual effectiveness of mitigation 

actions.

Some of the likely resource and social conflicts 

with routes and the use of routes are outlined in 

Appendix T, Off-Highway vehicle Mitigation

Examples. The Table provides examples of 

known or likely to develop conflicts that may 

arise in the foreseeable future and explores a 

possible progression of mitigating actions that 

could be taken. These actions are listed from 

least expensive and/or easiest to implement to 

most expensive and/or most difficult to 

implement. Not all mitigation measures listed 

in Appendix T may be needed. Additionally, it 

may be determined that actions not listed in the 

table are required in unique situations or when 

new technology becomes available. The 

intention is to communicate the methodology 

that might be used when attempting to find a 

suitable mitigation to an identified conflict with 

routes and their use as required by 43 CFR 

8342.1. It should be recognized this table does 

not constitute a recommendation of mitigation or 

a comprehensive or exhaustive list of possible 

mitigation actions that could be applied in any 

site specific situation.
Chapter 4

670

For the purpose of the following discussion, 

conflicts with routes and their use is discussed in 

two categories, natural and cultural resources 

and the social environment.

The resource conflict discussion would focus on 

BLM Land Health Standards and specific 

habitats for identified sensitive plant or animal 

species, and cumulative effects. The discussion 

of Land Health Standards addresses soil, water, 

desired plant communities and riparian 

condition.

Loss of soil and degradation of water quality 

usually require modification of the driving 

surface and placing adequate water control. 

Each instance of soil loss or water quality 

degradation requires its own solution which 

must be addressed on site. Engineering staff 

involvement is likely to be required. Physical 

route conditions can contribute to degrading 

conditions under heavy use that can result in 

runoff erosion. Appendix T lists a range of 

typical actions that could be applied in these 

situations. 
Chapter Five
Chapter 5

672

CHAPTER 5: 

CONSULTATION 

AND 

COORDINATION

5.1 COMMUNICATION 

METHODS

The Phoenix District (PD) was committed to 

authentic collaboration and cooperation with the 

general public, individual agencies, interest 

groups, and tribal governments in the 

development of this plan. The BLM feels that 

public collaboration and cooperation are the 

stepping stones to a successful RMP/EIS, which 

will guide appropriate management decisions in 

the coming years for the planning area. As 

indicated by the large amount of public 

participation provided during this planning 

process, the Agua Fria National Monument and 

the Bradshaw Harquahala Planning Area are 

certainly places that many Arizona residents and 

visitors feel passionate about. The Phoenix 

District tried to discover ways to collaborate 

with citizens and communities by understanding 

their visions for their communities and working

with them to design BLM management that 

would help to achieve both the community 

visions and BLM resource management needs. 

The PD ensured that agencies, communities, 

organizations, tribes, groups, and interested 

individuals affected by the planning decisions 

were properly informed and had the opportunity 

to be involved by establishing collaborative 

guidelines and methods in the planning process.

The following internal guidelines were followed 

during the planning process: 

1) Public comments were accepted 

throughout the planning effort.

2) All requests for information were 

granted, unless the information was 

unavailable or prohibited by policy or 

law.

3) Staff and managers met with any group 

or individual requesting such a meeting.

4) Internal processes, such as the Route 

Evaluation Tree©, were open to review 

and comments were invited. 

5) Staff and managers took planning 

information to meetings, such as the 

Resource Advisory Council, county, 

city, and Tribal Council meetings.

The following communication methods listed 

were established to keep the public informed 

about the planning process, but also invited the 

public to be intimately involved through a 

collaborative, interactive process:

Community Based Partnership and 

Stewardship workshops

EIS public scoping process

Planning bulletins

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

web page: 

(http://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/aguafria/a

fria_plan.htm)

Formal/Informal presentations to 

interested groups, agencies, and 

organizations

Cooperating Agencies

When navigating this section of the document, 

please refer to the Table of Contents to assist in 

finding comments and responses specific to 

certain issues.
Chapter 5

673

5.2 Community 

Outreach

5.2.1 Community Based 

Partnership workshops

A collaborative-community based approach was 

initiated in 1999 and 2000. BLM hosted 

workshops that focused on learning about 

communities within the planning areas and 

inviting community participation in our process. 

Prior to publication of the official Notice of 

Intent, approximately 30 presentations were 

made by invitation at community and interest 

group meetings in spring 2002. 

5.2.2 Scoping Meetings 

Ten total scoping meetings were held in Arizona 

communities. The meetings were structured to 

have an open house period, followed by a 

meeting/presentation where speakers could 

voice their concerns. BLM specialists were 

available to provide information and responses 

to questions. During the scoping meetings, 564 

people registered their attendance with 169 

offering to speak. Comments from the public 

were collected during the scoping meetings and 

throughout the scoping period through a variety 

of methods including mail, fax, and email.

5.2.3 Alternative 

Development Workshops 

BLM continued collaboration efforts by 

including communities in the formulation of 

Alternatives. A set of workshops were held 

throughout the planning area to give citizens the 

opportunity to refine issues, discuss visions for 

BLM-managed lands, and begin exploring 

different ways to manage BLM-administered

lands and resources. Input received from 

citizens— both groups and individuals— were 

considered in developing the Alternatives. 

Citizens were also able to submit formulated 

alternatives, as well as vision statements, for 

specific community areas or resources. These 

were considered in the range of alternatives and 

analyzed in the EIS, as required by NEPA.

Table 5-2. Alternative Development Workshops 

Dates Location

March 3 and 31, 2003 Wickenburg, AZ

March 5 and April 2, 

2003

Black Canyon City, AZ

March 6 and April 2, 

2003

Phoenix, (Deer Valley), AZ

March 8 and April 3, 

2003

Dewey-Humboldt, AZ

March 22 and April 12, 

2003

Prescott, AZ

5.2.4 Public Comment 

Meetings 

On January 6, 2006, the Draft RMPs/EIS were

published and released to the public. After this 

date, the public had 90 days to mail, email, fax, 

or verbally comment on the plan. During this 90-

day comment period, the BLM held a total of 

eight formal public meetings throughout the 

planning area. The primary objective of these 

meetings was to receive comments from the 

Table 5-1. Scoping Meetings

Dates Location

September 28, 2002 Flagstaff, AZ

October 1, 2002 Dewey-Humboldt , AZ

October 2, 2002 Black Canyon City, AZ

October 3, 2002 Yarnell, AZ

October 5, 2002 Castle Hot Springs, AZ

October 7, 2002 Buckeye, AZ

October 8, 2002 Phoenix, AZ 

October 9, 2002 Wickenburg, AZ

October 14, 2002 Prescott, AZ

October 16, 2002 Peoria, AZ
Chapter 5

674

public. Meeting attendees had the option of 

either verbally speaking to the BLM staff at the 

meeting or submitting written comments at the 

meeting. The meetings had as few as six 

attendees in Buckeye to over 85 attendees in the 

Dewey-Humboldt community. 

Table 5-3. Public Comment Meetings 

Dates Location

February 7, 2006 Phoenix (Deer Valley), 

AZ

February 8, 2006 Black Canyon City, AZ

February 9, 2006 Buckeye, AZ

February 16, 2006 Wickenburg, AZ

February 23, 2006 Dewey-Humboldt, AZ

February 28, 2006 Tucson, AZ

March 2, 2006 Yuma, AZ

March 23, 2006 Prescott, AZ

5.2.5 E-planning Workshops 

Meetings 

The Phoenix District (PD) also sought increased 

public involvement through e-Planning. Prior to 

the formal public comment meetings, PD held a 

total of six e-Planning workshops throughout the 

planning area to help the general public get 

acquainted with this new medium of reading a 

RMP/EIS. E-planning is an online interactive 

database, which provides readers with the 

flexibility to go onto the internet and read 

through the Draft RMP/EIS and submit 

comments on specific areas in the plan, as well 

as print and manipulate GIS maps. The majority 

of these meetings were held in computer labs at 

various libraries and schools. On a one-on-one 

basis, the public was given basic instructions on 

how to use many of the primary functions this 

program has to offer. 

Table 5-4. E-planning Workshop Meetings

Dates Location

January 17, 2006 Mayer, AZ

January 19, 2006 Yarnell, AZ

January 23, 2006 New River, AZ

January 24, 2006 Prescott, AZ

January 30, 2006 Wickenburg, AZ

February 1, 2006 Black Canyon City, AZ

5.2.6 Consultation and

Coordination

For information regarding coordination and 

consultation with collaborating agencies, 

cooperating agencies, and other stakeholder 

groups, please see Sections 1.4.4 through 1.4.6. 

The BLM consulted with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act regarding the 

effects of the Agua Fria National Monument and 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management 

Plans on threatened or endangered species. The 

Service issued a Biological Opinion (BO) 

#22410-05-F-0785 to the BLM which concluded 

that the proposed actions are not likely to 

adversely affect the endangered southwestern 

willow flycatcher, threatened bald eagle, 

threatened spikedace and the candidate western 

yellow-billed cuckoo. The Service further 

concluded that the proposed action is neither 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the Gila topminnow, Gila chub and desert 

pupfish, nor likely to adversely modify or 

destroy Gila chub critical habitat.

5.3 PUBLIC 

COMMENTS

5.3.1 Summary of 

Comments Received

A total of 431 individual comment letters and 

1,046 form letters (consisting of six separate 

form letters) were received by the Phoenix 

District at the end of the 90 day comment 

period. Besides Arizona, California was the 

most common location from which comments 
Chapter 5

675

were received, indicating that many California 

residents either recreate in the planning area, or 

are concerned with the lands that border their 

state of residence.

Not surprisingly, the majority of the letters 

submitted by Arizona residents came from the 

state‘s largest urban conglomerate, the Phoenix

Metropolitan Area (including suburban 

communities such as Glendale, Mesa, 

Scottsdale, and Tempe). The Prescott, Mayer, 

and Dewey-Humboldt Areas submitted over 100 

comment letters. A key issue represented by 

these comments was in large part due to the 

21,000 acres that BLM removed from the 

disposal list in the Preferred Alternative, an 

action many residents in this area supported. 

Although more distant from the planning area, 

over 40 comment letters came from the Tucson 

Metro Area. About 30 percent of comment 

letters from Tucson clearly indicated that they 

were concerned with preserving or conserving 

land in the planning area. This viewpoint 

represented the second largest organization type 

that commented on the plan.

While the majority of comment letters (296) did 

not clearly indicate which group or organization 

that the resident was representing, 15 precent of

individual comment letters were received from 

residents who stated that they were motorized 

recreationists. Most of the OHV respondents 

came from the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. For 

the Phoenix District, this is a clear indication 

that as the urban population increases in the 

Phoenix Metro Area, so will OHV use on 

neighboring BLM-managed lands.

5.3.2 Context of Comments 

Received 

The letters received by Phoenix District were 

broken into similar, smaller comments, totaling 

approximately 2,319 separate comments 

received during the 90-day comment period 

from January 6, 2006 to April 5, 2006. Some 

comments stated the respondents‘ exact opinion 

or preferred action, while others portrayed the 

various actions that they felt the BLM should 

undergo to meet their desired needs. Four 

themes were commonly addressed in many of 

the comments received by the Phoenix District, 

which represented an array of issues. These 

common themes are listed below.

Common Theme 1: Support for Alternative E 

(206 similar comments)

Example: ―I support alternate E from your 

choice of alternatives. (Individual, Mesa, AZ -

Comment: #533, letter #251)

Summary: Depending on which management 

action the commentors‘ favored in the Preferred 

Alternative, this theme was represented by 

various organization and individuals. The 

majority of these types of comments came from 

residents in the Dewey-Humboldt community, 

who favored the elimination of the 21,000 acres 

from the plan‘s disposal list in the Preferred 

Alternative.

Common Theme 2: Route Inventory Specific, 

designate more/less routes (130 similar 

comments).

Example: There have been unreasonable 

proposals that vehicular travel be allowed up 

Badger Springs Wash or down to the Agua Fria 

River. This is precluded by the Proclamation.

(Friends of the Agua Fria National Monument, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2087, letter #339)

Or

Example: Please allow Motorized events and 

increased motorized use in the Vulture mine 

area. With the increased participation in 

motorized use and the constant expansion of 

urban areas, existing Motorized opportunities 

are decreasing. They should be increasing.

(Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: #519, 

letter #238)
Chapter 5

676

Summary: Phoenix District received many of 

these types of comments, in large part because 

many of the motorized recreation commentors 

addressed similar issues and actions. Opposing 

arguments were received by different groups as 

well.

Common Theme 3: Open or Close 

areas/routes to OHV use (118 similar 

comments).

Example: Close all washes to motorized vehicles

except for short crossings of major routes.

(Individual, New River, AZ - Comment: #971, 

letter #360)

Or

Example: All existing and or inventoried roads, 

routes, and trails should remain open for public 

vehicular access (Yuma Valley Rod and Gun 

Club, Inc, Yuma, AZ - Comment: #1065, letter 

#163)

Summary: (Refer to summary for Common 

Theme 2)

Common Theme 4: Decision Making Process 

and Methods

Example: I think first of all that everything that 

the BLM does in the monument needs to be 

directed towards the betterment of that 

monument proclamation objects. Freelance ORV 

use is contrary to that monument proclamation.

(Grand Canyon Chapter of Sierra Club, Phoenix, 

AZ - Comment: #702, letter #74)

Summary: These types of comments indicated 

decision making processes that commentors‘ felt 

that the BLM needed to follow. The comments 

vary in type of action; however, they all pinpoint 

a certain method that would protect their favored 

resource/recreation. 

5.3.3 Comment Analysis 

Process 

Analyzing and Coding Comments 

In order to properly analyze and respond to each 

of the 1,477 letters received by Phoenix District, 

the BLM followed the USDA Forest Service 

Content Analysis Team (CAT) process for 

comment analysis. This process has been used 

to analyze thousands comments over numerous 

Environmental Impact Statements nationwide, 

and BLM believes it to be a defensible process 

to catalog and address comments. 

An Excel software database was created to log 

letters and refer to a scanned copy of each 

parsed letter. The letter log maintained 

information on how the letter was received (e.g., 

at a public meeting, by postal mail, or by email), 

respondent information (e.g., from an individual, 

government, tribe, or interest group), name and 

address of respondent, and how many people 

signed the letter. 

When a letter was received, the original was 

date-stamped and numbered with a unique Letter 

ID number for tracking purposes, then retained 

for the administrative record. Two photocopies 

copies were made: one for public review and 

one for a working copy. The working copy was 

parsed and coded (see below), entered into the 

E-planning database, and then scanned again for 

the administrative record.

The coding process required staff to identify and 

code stand alone comments in each letter, which 

allowed BLM to respond to similar comments at 

one time. BLM dedicated three employees to 

read and code the comment letters. Each 

individual letter was read and parsed, and each 

individual comment was designated to an 

appropriate action and rational code. The action 

codes were based on type of act requested by the 

respondent and the rational codes were based on 

the reason for requesting a specific action. The 
Chapter 5

677

coded comments were then entered into the Eplanning database, which gave each comment a 

unique number known as Comment Number. 

Comments were then grouped by action and 

rationale and have been responded to in this 

chapter. 

Summarizing Comments

BLM responded to the individual comments by 

summarizing them into Public Concerns. The 

responses to each of these concerns are in 

Section 5.4 Response to Public Comments. 

Although all comments are represented by the 

Public Concern, not all comments are printed in 

this section. Instead, the comments shown in 

Section 5.4 are samples of the range of 

comments that fit under each Public Concerns. 

A copy of all comments received by the Phoenix 

District is available on a CD included with this 

document.

Each public concern was given a Public Concern 

Code, which indicates the topic of each concern 

and allows the public to locate a specific 

response to an individual comment. Each Public 

Concern Code and the sections in which they are 

located are indicated in Table 5.5 below. 

Table 5-5 Index of Comment Codes

Subject 

Public 

Concern 

Code 

Section 

No.

Alternatives & Proposed 

Management Actions

AL 1-6 5.4.1

Objects of the Agua Fria 

National Monument

MO 1-8 5.4.2

Special Area Designations SD 1-16 5.4.3

Lands and Realty LR 1-41 5.4.4

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources WS 1-11 5.5.5

Biological Resources TE 1-25 5.4.6

Cultural Resources CL 1-12 5.4.7

Recreation Resources RR 1-40 5.4.8

Wilderness Characteristics WC 1-23 5.4.9

Visual Resources VM 1-6 5.4.10

Rangeland Management GM 1-23 5.4.11

Mineral Resource MI 1-12 5.4.12

Management

Travel TM 1-57 5.4.13

Wild Horse and Burro WB 1 5.4.14

Document Complexity and 

Review

DR 1-5 5.4.15

Editorial Errors and 

Clarification

EI 1-21 5.4.16

Enforcement and Funding EF 1-2 5.4.17

Implementation, Mitigation, 

and Monitoring

IP 1-4 5.4.18

Inventory of Resources IV 1 5.4.19

Public Participation PP 1-2 5.4.20

Research, Education, and 

Collaboration

RE 1-7 5.4.21

E-Planning EP 1 5.4.22

5.3.4 Agencies, 

Organizations, Groups, and 

Individuals who provided

Comments

The following list displays the names of the 

agencies, organizations, groups, and individuals 

who commented on the DRMPs/DEIS, along 

with the Letter ID Number. In order for the 

public to track how their individual comments 

were responded to, they must find their name 

and then identify where Public Concern Code 

their comments were placed under. Once this 

code is identified, the respondent can then 

reference the response to their individual 

comment in Section 5.4. Many letters included 

multiple comments; therefore, multiple comment 

codes may be listed under a name. All 

individuals who requested confidentiality are not 

listed by name.
Chapter 5

678

Table 5-6. Agencies, Organizations, Groups, and Individuals who Commented

Name Letter ID 

Number

Public Concern Code

Michael Agliarado 328 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-44

George and Frances

Alderson

381 MO-1, WC-22, TM-48

Greta Anderson 

(Center for Biological Diversity)

338 AL-1, AL-4, MO-1-2, MO-8, SD-3, SD-9, SD-12, CL-5-6, TE-12-

13, TE-18, DR-5, GM-1-7, GM-9, GM-13-14, GM-16-23, IP-3

Ray Anderson

(Verde Valley 4 Wheelers)

400 AL-1, SD-14, DR-4, WC-6, WC-14, WC-16, WC-20-21, RR-21, 

TM-9, TM-13, TM-33

Walt Anderson 320 AL-2, MO-1, SD-11, WC-22, RR-40, TM-44, TM-48-49

Name Withheld 114 EI-1

Name Withheld 110 LR-17

Kyle Asel 

(Apache Motorcycle Inc.)

174 AL-1, RR-28, TM-23

Fred Attyah 98 RR-13

Anne and Jim Badger 238 RR-15, RR-20, RR-24, RR-28, TM-8, TM-23-26, TM-49-50

Humberto Badillo 312 VM-2, WC-22, RR-40, TM-44, TM-48

Nick Bafaloukos 99 AL-1

Sandy Bahr 81 MO-1, DR-5

Beryl Baker 170 MO-1

Jabe Beal 331 RR-20, TM-1, TM-12, TM-23

Michal Bennett 364 MO-1, LR-17, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Todd Berger 344 AL-1, RR-28

David Bergman 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture)

271 TE-8

Bettina Bickel 274 SD-11, WC-22, TM-28, TM-53

Bob Biegel 73 AL-5

Matt Bigler 288 TM-4

Joseph Birdy 205 AL-2, MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Janine Blaeloch 

(Western Lands Project)

14 DR-2, DR-4, LR-5

Jan Bleeker 24 AL-1, LR-15

Lauren Bolinger 386 DR-4, RR-20, RR-22, RR-26, RR-28, RR-32, TM-23

Nathan Booker 363 AL-1, MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Russell Bowers 

(Arizona Rock Products Association)

355 AL-1, VM-4, MI-3, MI-10-11, WC-12, TM-3

Copper Bradshaw 374 AL-1

Don Brennecke 314 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Clint Brown 233 AL-1, RR-28

Steve Brown 206 AL-1, RR-15, RR-20, RR-24, RR-28, TM-1, TM-8, TM-23-26, 

TM-49-50

Barry Brummett 

(Arizona Rock Crawlers)

263 RR-20

Jim Buchanan 4 LR-15

Jeff Burgess 23 GM-13, GM-15

Ann Marie Calabrese 146 LR-15

Jay Caliendo 303 LR-17

James Campbell 330 AL-1, WC-22, TM-47

Noel Caniglia 141, 220 LR-17

Tom Caniglia 142, 221 PP-1, RE-4

John Carr 

(Wickenburg Outdoor Recreation 

398 AL-1, LR-10, LR-11, LR-19, EI-1-2, RR-3, RR-39
Chapter 5

679

Committee)

Jane Carrol 334 [form #3] LR-19, MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Richard Carter 182 TM-19

Dewanye Cassidy 27 RE-7

Peter Castaneda 

(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation)

399 CL-8, TE-14, LR-9, LR-27-28, LR-32, EI-6

Rose Chilcoat 372 AL-2, MO-1, LR-17, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Name Withheld 58 LR-17, WC-22, RR-20

Name Withheld 228, 310 AL-1, SD-3, SD-11, CL-9, CL-12, TE-1, VM-5, LR-17, LR-23, 

WC-5, WC-22, RR-20, RR-40, TM-15, TM-30, TM-47

Sanford Cohen 

(Prescott Open Trails Association)

104, 136, 232 AL-1, TM-9, TM-23, TM-28, TM-36, TM-49

Mike Colbert 245 LR-17

Carol and Robert Cole 313 AL-1, TM-15

Nancy Coleman 167 MO-1, LR-17

Glen Collins 

(Public Lands Foundation, Arizona 

Chapter)

306 MO-1

Patty Collins 200 GM-13

Robert Cothern 280, 281, 284, 

285

AL-1-2, SD-11, SD-14-15, WS-7, CL-12, VM-6, MI-2, LR-12, 

LR-14-15, LR-23, LR-25, LR-36, EI-15, EI-16, RR-4, RR-37, 

TM-24, TM-46, TM-48, TM-52

Stanley Cothern (Black Canyon Black 

Sheep Four Wheel Club)

3 AL-1, LR-17

Name Withheld 90, 111, 227 SD-3, SD-11, CL-9, WC-3, WC-5, WC-22, TM-16, TM-28, TM44, TM-53, TM-55, LR-15

D Crow 95 TM-9

Name Withheld 161 MI-7, LR-15

Thom Danfield 359 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

A.G. "Chip" Davis 13 PP-1

Treesha DeFrance 134 LR-15

Sy DeVries 309 AL-1, RR-28

George DeWolf 57, 181, 135, 

270

EI-1, RR-6-7-8, RR-11, TM-15, TM-23, TM-28, TM-35, TM-40, 

TM-43

Name Withheld 153 EF-1

Resident Dewey-Humboldt 66 LR-15

Resident Dewey-Humbolt 67 LR-17

Deweyantfarm 65 LR-15

Ryan Dickson 172 AL-1, RR-20, RR-24, RR-28, TM-23, TM-50

Don Drake 267 RR-20

Kenneth Driscoll 241 RR-20, TM-8, TM-23-24

Dennis DuVall 173 AL-1, MO-1, TE-24, WC-22, RR-19, TM-45, TM-48

John Dusel 175 AL-1, RR-20, RR-28, TM-23-24

William Eldridge 244 AL-1, AL-5, TM-23

Joe & Cindy Farmer 15 LR-15

Bill Feldmeier 219 TM-49

Mike Fissel 251 AL-1, EF-1, RR-15, RR-20, RR-24, RR-28, TM-8-9, TM-23-26, 

TM-49, TM-50

Jim Florence 82, 212, 265 AL-1, EF-1, RE-4, RR-15, RR-20, RR-24, RR-28, TM-8, TM-14, 

TM-24-26, TM-29, TM-37, TM-49-50

Buzz Fournier 10 AL-1, LR-17

Paul Franckowiak 305 MO-1, TE-1, GM-5, LR-17, WC-22, RR-20, RR-37

Scott Frank 86 WS-11

Joseph Freeman 366 WC-22
Chapter 5

680

Jon Fugate 

(Yuma Valley Gun and Rod Club)

150, 163 TE-5-6, DR-4, WC-9-10, WC-14, TM-23

Marc Galeano 101 LR-2

Name Withheld 229 AL-1, MO-1, EP-1, WC-22, TM-1, TM-56

Lydia Garvey 155 AL-1, WC-22

Russel Gevarter 

(AZ Rockrats)

257 AL-1, RR-22, RR-28, RR-40, TM-17

Debbie Gifford 

(Town of Dewey-Humboldt)

187 LR-15

Tom Gilmore 

(Citizens Water Advocacy Group)

20 CL-9, MI-1, RR-6, RR-19, TM-1, TM-23

Lisa Giordano 43 AL-1, LR-15

Rich Glinski 88 AL-1

Joseph and Shareen Goodroad 360 SD-7, SD-11, MI-2, LR-27, PP-1, WC-5, WC-22, TM-28, TM-48

Shareen Goodroad 

(New River / Desert Hills Community 

Association)

393 AL-1-2, SD-11, SD-14-15, WS-7, CL-12, MI-2, LR-12, LR-14-

15, LR-23, LR-25, LR-36, RR-4, RR-37, TM-21, TM-46, TM-48

Penny Govedich 378 AL-1, MO-1, SD-11, WC-22, RR-40, TM-44, TM-48-49, TM-52

Pamela Griggs 69 LR-17

David Gronlund 

(Arizona Motorcycle Riders 

Association)

247 AL-1, EF-1, RR-20, RR-28, TM-24

Lori Gronlund 260 AL-1, RR-28, TM-1

Name Withheld 269 AL-1, SD-3, SD-11, CL-9, CL-12, WC-5, TM-44, TM-49

Michael Guest 362 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Jerry Guevin 

(Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Society)

342 AL-1, SD-7, TE-4, TE-7, TE-15-16, DR-3-4, VM-1, IP-1, WC-1, 

WC-4, WC-11, WC-14, WC-15, WC-17-19, WC-21, RR-36, TM34

Jeff Gursh 

(Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle 

Coalition)

261 AL-1, LR-41, EF-1, RR-15-17, RR-20, RR-24, RR-27-29, RR-31-

33, TM-8-9, TM-13-15, TM-24-25, TM-27-28, TM-49-51, TM-53

CR Hummel 365 AL-2

David Haglan 258 AL-1, RR-15, RR-20, RR-24, RR-28, TM-8, TM-23-26, TM-49-

50

Name Withheld 109, 346 AL-1, LR-15

Jeanie Halstead 7 AL-1

Bunnie Hamm 2 AL-1

Diana Hans 171 AL-1, LR-30, RR-37, TM-19, TM-44

E. Harrison 295 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-9, TM-48

Roger Haughey 168 LR-17

Sydney Hay 

(Arizona Mining Association)

186 MI-1, MI-10

Travis Haynie 

(Arizona Motorcycle Riders 

Association)

165 AL-1, RR-24, RR-28

Scott Helfinstine 217 TM-49

Jacek M. Herchold 9 AL-1

Amy Heuslein 

(U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Western Region)

354 AL-1

Mary Hoadley 

(Upper Agua Fria Watershed 

Partnership)

369 AL-1, RE-4

Mark Hofgard 329 MO-1, SD-11, RR-40, TM-44, TM-49
Chapter 5

681

Robert Hollis 

(U.S. Federal Highway 

Administration)

162 LR-23, LR-26, LR-33, LR-40, EI-1, EI-7-8

Howard Holt 294 MO-1, LR-17, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Don Hood 

(Arizona Trail Riders)

164 (form #2) AL-1, RR-15, RR-20, RR-24, RR-28, TM-8, TM-23, TM-24-26, 

TM-49-50

William Hooven 246 AL-1, RR-28, TM-23

Lee Howard 210 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

John Howell 154 AL-1, CL-3, EF-1, RR-11

Cathy Hubbard 16 AL-1

Time Huddleston 62 LR-15

Pat Hughes 213 DR-3, RR-20, RR-28, TM-15, TM-24

Doug Hulmes 157 AL-1, WS-11, LR-5, PP-1, WC-22, TM-49

Gerry Hustin 324 DR-3, RR-20, RR-28

Lynnette and Don Huston 44 LR-17, PP-1

Individual 166 AL-1, RR-28, TM-23

Individual 203 AL-1, RR-28, TM-17

Jeremy Iness 18 AL-1

Duane James 

(U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency)

396 SD-5, SD-11, SD-14, WS-1-5, WS-8-9, TE-11, TE-17, DR-1, 

GM-8, LR-4, LR-7, LR-8, EI-1, RR-30, TM-44

Name Withheld 353 AL-1, SD-14, WB-1, GM-8, RE-5, RE-7, RR-6, RR-10, RR-25, 

TM-30, TM-44

Orlo Jantz 29 WS-11, LR-17

Darrington Jay 51 MI-1

David Jenner 49 AL-1, LR-3

Keith Jensen 96 RR-20, RR-40

Charles & JoAnn Johnson 92 LR-17

Name Withheld 55 EI-1

Mike Johnson 93 AL-1

Theresa Johnson 368 MO-1

Scott Jones 

(Sierra Club)

100, 103, 138, 

145, 223, 340

AL-1, MO-1, MO-5, MO-8, SD-3, SD-11, SD-14, EP-1, WS-11, 

CL-12, TE-19-21, DR-5, GM-5, GM-9, VM-2-3, LR-18, LR-23, 

LR-38, EI-1, IP-3, PP-1, WC-22, RR-6, RR-10, RR-12, RR-19-20, 

RR-24, RR-37-38, RR-40, TM-44-45, TM-47-49, TM-53

John Jorde 178 AL-1, TM-23-24

John Keefe 50 AL-1, DR-2, LR-15

Kevin Keith 332 AL-2, MO-1, SD-11, WC-22, RR-40, TM-44, TM-48-49

Alan Kessler 59 GM-14

Name Withheld 78 AL-1, AL-5, EF-1, RE-4, TM-15

Keith Kintigh 297 CL-9-10, LR-20, EF-1-2, RE-3, RE-5-6, RR-10

William Kisich 235 RR-20, RR-28, TM-23, TM-24

Tawny Kite 133 AL-1

Burket Kniveton 231 MO-1, SD-3, EP-1, PP-1, WC-5, WC-22, TM-16, TM-28, TM-45

Tyler Kokjohn 341 MO-3, SD-11, IP-1-3, RE-4, WC-22

Ken Kozlik 254 AL-1, RR-28

Lance Krigbaum 300 WC-22, RR-40, TM-23, TM-28

Name Withheld 75 AL-1, TE-1, RE-4, RR-40, TM-48

Melissa Kruse 333 CL-9, EF-1, RE-5, RR-10

Roberta Kurtz 298 AL-2, MO-1, SD-14, GM-5, WC-22, RR-38, RR-40, TM-41

Leigh Kuwansisiwma 

(Hopi Cultural Preservation Office)

384 AL-2, CL-11, DR-5, RE-5

Dave Laird 273 AL-1, TE-6, TE-8, TE-11, TE-13, TE-18, TE-21, TE-23, GM-9, 
Chapter 5

682

(Arizona Antelope Foundation) RR-18

Doris Lake 60 LR-17

Rudi Lambrechtse 375 TM-44

Jim Lara 234 AL-6

Kathleen Larson 301 RR-20, RR-40

W. A. Laudenslager 97 AL-1, AL-5

Daniel Laux 391 AL-1, SD-8, MI-1, MI-10, WC-16

Kevin Lay 72 RR-34, TM-11, CL-1

Scott, Lynn, Becca, and Megan 

Layton

308 AL-1, AL-5, WC-2

Isolt Lea 209 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Dan Lee 68, 218 LR-15

Donald and Patricia Lee 8 AL-1, LR-17

Jen Leitch 304 AL-1-2, MO-1, WC-22, RR-10, RR-16, RR-37, TM-23

George Lemley 236 AL-1, TM-50

Kevin Leonard 112 LR-15

Lyle Leslie 248 AL-1, LR-17, RR-15, RR-20, RR-24, RR-28, TM-8, TM-23-26, 

TM-49-50

Lainie Levick 319 AL-2, GM-13, MI-1, RR-37, TM-28, TM-48, SD-11

Erin Lotz 307 LR-17

Ian Love 337, (form #6) DR-3, RR-20, RR-28, TM-15, TM-24

Diane Lovett 

(Yavapai County Trails Committee)

21 LR-17

Lyle MacNee 107 LR-17

Joyce Mackin 28 AL-1

Catherine Marcinkevage 201 SD-4, WS-1, GM-6, GM-20, LR-1, EI-1, EI-12

Mary Markus 237 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Andrea Martinez 382 DR-3-5, WC-15, WC-17, WC-21, TM-35

Mike Mattison 377 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Lynne and George May 17 AL-1

Beau McClure 

(Public Lands Foundation, Arizona 

Chapter)

289, 387, 403 AL-1, MO-1, GM-19, LR-13, LR-15, RE-4, TM-35

Bob McCormick 

(Sonoran Audubon Society)

287 AL-1, SD-3, WS-10, TE-11, GM-12, GM-20, RE-4

Lee and Jill McCoy 12 LR-15

Sandee McCullen 

(Arizona Association of 4 Wheel 

Drive Clubs)

264, 380 RR-15, RR-20, RR-22, RR-24, RR-28, RR-32, TM-1, TM-8, TM23-25, TM-49-50

Patsy Cordes McDonald 64 GM-10, WC-22

Name Withheld 183 SD-11, CL-12, VM-2, WC-5, WC-22, RR-19, TM-45, TM-47

Jacklin McKinley 

(Whiplash Motorsports)

80, 83, 216 AL-5, DR-3, RE-4, RR-20, RR-28-29, RR-31, RR-34, TM-9, TM23

Jay and Jacklin McKinley 389 AL-1, DR-4, RR-17, RR-20, RR-22, RR-24, RR-26, RR-28-29, 

RR-31-33, TM-8-9, TM-13-15, TM-23-25, TM-27-28, TM-49-51, 

TM-53

Margarete Meares 327 LR-17

Cary Meister 152 MO-1, SD-11, LR-17, WC-5, WC-22, TM-47

Mike Merril 202 AL-1, RR-28

Fritz Milas 207 MO-1, MO-4, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Dave Miller 149 AL-1, PP-1, WC-16, WC-21
Chapter 5

683

David Miller 160 SD-14, DR-4, WC-6, WC-14, WC-16, RR-21, TM-1, TM-13, 

TM-21, TM-23, TM-33

Larry Miller 

(Pleasant Views LLC)

356 LR-6

Jack Moore 256 AL-1, RR-28, TM-23-24

Keith Moore 323 AL-5, TM-24

Mike Mullarkey 5, 249 AL-2, MO-1, SD-14, GM-5, LR-17, WC-22, RR-37-38, RR-40, 

TM-48

Scott Myer 26 RR-13

Ingrid Nasca 56 LR-17

Rodney Ness 290 DR-3, RR-20, RR-28, TM-15, TM-24

Dave O 

(ArizonaXJ Club)

243 AL-1, RR-28

Michael O'Brien 184 LR-15

Stu Olson 252 RR-18, RR-21-22, RR-28, TM-15, TM-24, TM-50

Stuart Olson (AZ Virtual Jeep Club) 266 AL-1, RR-20, TM-23

Norma Orr 70 LR-17

Ruth and Floyd Osborne 242 AL-1

William Osborne 

(Transwestern Pipeline Company)

383 LR-22, LR-39

Gary Overson 

(Aguila Ranch)

352 WS-9, GM-11-12

Jill Ozarski 

(The Wilderness Society)

343 AL-1, AL-6, MO-1-2, MO-6-8, SD-1-2, SD-10-11, SD-14, EP-1, 

CL-4, CL-12, TE-10, TE-22, LR-15-16, LR-23, LR-31, EI-1, IP-4, 

IV-1, PP-1, RE-5, WC-4-5, WC-13, WC-22, RR-6, RR-10, RR14, RR-25, RR-34, RR-37, RR-40, TM-5, TM-7, TM-21, TM-32, 

TM-36, TM-37-39, TM-41-44, TM-54

Jimmy Parker 63 LR-17

Jim and Bonnie Paulos 169 MO-1

Michael Pawlowski 

(Southwest Cinders LLC)

345 MI-1, MI-4, MI-9, WC-16

Larry Pearlman 385 AL-1, SD-14, GM-5, WC-22, RR-37-38, RR-40, TM-48

Andrew Peters 

(Dewey-Humboldt Community 

Organization)

47 LR-15

Andy and Nancy Peters 42 LR-17

Nancy Peters 6 LR-17

James Pierson 370 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40

Patrick Pierson 151 AL-5, AL-6

Chris Plumb 268 AL-1, RR-24, RR-28, TM-8, TM-23

Brenda Polacca 318 MO-1, WC-22, RR-20, RR-40, TM-48

Dan Poole 240 AL-1, RR-20

John Pugliese 367 AL-1, RR-20, RR-26

Chris Radoccia 

(AZA)

79, 293 TE-21, EF-1, PP-1, RR-22, RR-24, TM-15, TM-17, TM-23-24

Bruce Reed 156 AL-5, DR-5, TM-1

Mary S Reed 315 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Loren Rice 94 PP-1

Glenn Richardson 255 AL-1, RR-28

Elizabeth Ridgely 335 (form #4) AL-2, SD-14, MO-1, GM-5, WC-22, RR-37-38, RR-40, TM-48

Tom Roberts 250 AL-1, RR-20, RR-28

Name Withheld 19 AL-1

Paul Roette 336 (form #5) MO-1, SD-11, WC-22, RR-40, TM-44, TM-48-49

Garry Rogers 113 AL-1, SD-16

Name Withheld 71 LR-17

Thornell Rogers 276 MI-4
Chapter 5

684

(Southwest Cinders LLC)

Roxane Ronca 311 MO-1, RR-11, RR-34, RR-40, TM-48

Roni Rummel 

(Prescott Saddle Club)

25 AL-1, LR-15

Bill Rotolo 

(Peoria Holdings LLC)

390 LR-37

Jim Rupe 105 TM-10, TM-23, TM-28

John Ryan 

(Trail Riders of Southern Arizona)

180 AL-1, RR-4, RR-28

Mark Salvo 

(National Public Grazing Campaign) 

185 GM-1, GM-18

Babs Sanders 282, 283 AL-1-2, SD-11, SD-14-15, WS-7, CL-12, VM-6, MI-2, LR-12, 

LR-14-15, LR-23, LR-25, EI-13, EI-15-16, RR-4, RR-36-37, TM46, TM-48, TM-52

Mary Sargent 147 LR-15

Mary and Robert Sargent 30 LR-15

Steve Saway 286 AL-1, WB-1, GM-13, WC-6, RR-6, RR-9, TM-49

William Scalzo 

(Maricopa County Parks and 

Recreation)

350 AL-1, LR-12, LR-19, PP-1, RE-6

Dan Scheske 

(Arizona ATV Riders)

262 RR-20, TM-23

Charles Schlessman 53 MI-1

Name Withheld 230 TM-9

Gerald Schwartz 22 LR-17

Judith Shaw 

(Tonopah Area Coalition)

45, 347 AL-1-2, SD-1, SD-3, SD-7, MI-8, LR-15, LR-17, LR-21, LR-35, 

TM-48, WC-22, RR-5, RR-20, RR-40

Donald Shields

(Off-Chamber MC)

179 AL-1, RR-28

Gwyn Shippy 106 LR-17

Duane Shroufe 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department)

401 AL-6, SD-6, WS-6, TE-2-3, TE-16, TE-25, DR-4, LR-27, EI-1, 

EI-4-5, EI-9-10, EI-14, EI-17-18, EI-20-22, WC-7, WC-9-10, 

WC-15, WC-17, WC-21, RR-1, RR-35-36, TM-2, TM-6, TM-31-

32, TM-34

Madan Singh 

(Arizona Department of Mines and 

Mineral Resources)

61 VM-4, MI-3, MI-5-6, MI-10, MI-12

Thomas Slaback 

(Sierra Club)

388 SD-7, SD-11, WC-22, GM-5, LR-15, TM-44

Lou Smith 222 MI-1, TM-9, LR-15

Michael Smith 

(Public Lands Counsel, National 

Trust for Historic Preservation)

402 AL-1, AL-6, MO-1, MO-6, SD-14, CL-2, CL-7, CL-12, IP-4, RE5, RR-10, RR-37, TM-41-42

Steve Speak 214 AL-1, RR-15, RR-20, RR-24, RR-28, TM-8, TM-23-24, TM-26

Katherine Speilmann 325 MO-4, CL-9, LR-20, RE-1-3, RR-6, RR-10, TM-57

Edson Spencer 

(Wickenburg Conservation 

Foundation)

102 AL-1

Frank Staley 176 AL-1, RR-28, TM-15

Yoyi Steele 316 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-48

Name Withheld 39 RR-13

Curtis, Janet, and Scott Supanchis 177 AL-1, EF-1, RR-28

Tice Supplee 

(Arizona Audubon)

279 AL-1, SD-3, TE-11, LR-23, PP-2, WC-22, TM-1

Name Withheld 140 AL-1, RR-20, RR-40

Name Withheld 379 SD-13, TM-22
Chapter 5

685

Robert Theobald 326 RR-28

Thomas Thurman 48 LR-15

Cliff Titus 54 AL-1, LR-15

Clifford Titus 144 AL-1, RE-4

Peggy Titus 

(Friends of the Agua Fria River 

Basin)

89, 143, 224, 

239

AL-1, LR-15, PP-1

Robert Tohe 371 MO-1, SD-14, GM-5, WC-22, RR-37-38, RR-40, TM-48

Brett Traube 132 LR-17

Tom Trieckel 215 AL-1, RR-24, RR-28, TM-8, TM-23-24, TM-49-50

Name Withhheld 87 RR-2

Ann-Louise Truschel 11, 322, 373 AL-1, SD-14, MO-1, WC-22, RR-37-38, TM-44, TM-48-49

Jim Vaaler 

(Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter)

46, 74, 85 MO-1, SD-11, CL-12, TE-17-18, GM-5, LR-20, EI-1, PP-1, WC8, WC-22, RR-37, RR-40, TM-20, TM-47-48

Sara Vannucci 392 PP-1

Jeffrey Vrieling 

(Rock Stars Motorcycle Club)

253 AL-1, RR-20, RR-28

Robert Warren 317 MO-1, WC-22, RR-40, TM-15, TM-48

John Watkins 52, 302 AL-1, MO-1, SD-11, CL-9, WC-5, WC-22, RR-40, TM-28, TM48

Greg Watts 91 AL-1, LR-20, TM-18

Name Withheld 139 AL-1, TM-28

Frank Welsh 376 AL-1, WS-8, DR-5, LR-5, EI-1, EI-11

Peter Welsh 

(Friends of the Agua Fria National 

Monument)

339 AL-1, MO-1, MO-5, MO-8, SD-3, SD-11, SD-14, EP-1, WS-11, 

TE-19-21, GM-5, GM-9, GM-20, VM-2-3, LR-18, LR-23, LR-38, 

EF-2, IP-3-4, WC-22-23, RR-6, RR-10, RR-19, RR-25, RR-40, 

TM-44, TM-47-49, TM-53

Joseph Wenzel 225 CL-3, LR-17, TM-49

Frances Werner 

(Arizona BLM Resource Advisory 

Committee)

204, 272 AL-1, AL-3, DR-4, LR-13, LR-15, LR-34, RE-4, WC-3, TM-1, 

TM-35, TM-49

William Werner 

(Arizona Department of Water 

Resources)

296 WS-11

Jason Williams 

(Arizona Wilderness Coalition)

37, 38, 76, 84, 

84, 137, 148, 

226

AL-1, AL-5, SD-9, SD-11, EP-1, WS-11, LR-15, LR-27, WC-22, 

RR-14, RR-23, TM-11, TM-28, TM-30, TM-48

Todd Williams

(Arizona Department of 

Transportation)

397 VM-3, LR-23-24, LR-26, LR-29, LR-33, EI-1-3, EI-19

Jeff Williamson 

(Phoenix Zoo)

357 MO-2, GM-5, EF-2, IP-3, WC-22, TM-47

Stephen Williamson 361 RR-40, 

Name Withheld 158, 159 LR-15, PP-1

Dan Wittig 292 RR-20, RR-28, TM-15, TM-24

Robert A Witzeman 

(Maricopa Audubon Society)

321 MO-1, SD-14, GM-5, WC-22, RR-37-38, RR-40, TM-48

Floyd and Nancy Wright 41 AL-1

Bryan Wyberg 208 MO-1, CL-3, WC-22, RR-40, TM-44, TM-48

Name Withheld 77 PP-1, RR-34, TM-1, TM-23

Joel Zaske 211 AL-1, RR-20, TM-24

Eric Zite 259 AL-1, RR-28, TM-23
Chapter 5

686

5.4 PUBLIC 

COMMENTS AND 

RESPONSES

This section contains the public concerns 

expressed in the comments received from 

individuals, agencies, organizations, and groups 

during the comment period on the 

DRMPs/DEIS. Following each public concern 

statement is the BLM response and examples of 

public comments submitted to BLM. The 

comments received from the public are in their 

original form.

5.4.1 ALTERNATIVES & 

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS

Public Concern (AL-1): 

The rapid urbanization of central Arizona has 

made the loss of open space and natural 

landscapes for recreation a major issue. The 

document places considerable emphasis on 

managing and sustaining open space and 

diverse recreation opportunities while meeting 

the FLPMA policy of sustained yield and 

multiple uses of natural resources.

Many comments were received supporting 

Alternative E which is the Preferred Alternative. 

Concerns were expressed for educating future 

generations on the history of the lands, focusing 

on public schools and institutions for future 

growth, preserving open space and recognizing 

the need for out door recreation. Members of 

the public commented that Alternative E 

provides the optimal balance between 

authorized resource use and the protection and 

long-term sustainability of sensitive resources 

within both planning areas.

Comments also suggests citizens are in support 

of Alternative A as a way to maintain the lands 

as they are, keep historic and traditional uses of 

the land, and retain the lands open to the public. 

They felt Alternative E was characterized by 

many questions but no answers. Other 

comments suggest Alternative D provides better 

protection for natural landscapes and cultural 

resources by limiting land uses in AguaFria

National Monument and protecting lands in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala planning area. 

Response (AL-1): 

Many uses are made of the BLM-managed lands 

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala planning area. 

These areas support livestock grazing and 

habitat for a variety of wildlife species. 

They are a source of construction materials and 

support uses ranging from utility lines to 

communication sites. These lands also represent 

one of the most popular recreation areas within 

100 miles of Phoenix. The rapid urbanization of 

central Arizona has made the loss of open space 

and natural landscapes for recreation a 

significant issue for people within our planning 

area. 

Our document places a heavy emphasis on 

managing and sustaining open space and diverse 

recreation opportunities in the BradshawHarquahala area, while meeting the FLPMA 

policy of sustained yield and multiple use of 

natural resources. The Phoenix District believes 

the best combination of providing for resource 

use while protecting resource values is achieved 

in Alternative E.

Public Comments (AL-1): 

Comment: You have done a good job of 

identifying open space, natural resources and 

natural landscapes as the major attraction and

outdoor recreation as the major use of these 

BLM lands, and the Preferred Alternative E 

provides for both public use and resource 

protection across the full spectrum of recreation 

opportunities in the Management Areas.

(Individual, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #471, 

letter #204)

Comment: Freedom to use the lands of our 

great country should not be denied to any citizen 

of America. We have enough laws and 

regulations to enforce the management of our 

lands without taking away more of our God 
Chapter 5

687

given rights to enjoy nature, without being 

harassed with a bunch of new laws and 

regulations. Leave Things alone, Please.

(Individual - Comment: #77, letter #97)

Comment: Alternative D should be 

reconsidered for the Preferred Alternative since 

it also offers the widest range of high quality 

recreation opportunities with the lowest amount 

of impacts so a sustainable balance between 

public enjoyment and resource conservation 

would be more easily achieved. (Tonopah Area 

Coalition, Tonopah, AZ - Comment: #1123, 

letter #347)

Public Concern (AL-2): 

Many comments note Alternative E does not 

protect the lands adequately. Concerns focus on 

reducing or eliminating grazing, mining, offhighway vehicles, and target shooting to 

preserve the lands for future generations. 

Citizens feel BLM should do more to protect 

plant/wildlife, archeological resources, and 

water resources

Response (AL-2):

All alternatives and all decisions proposed for 

the Agua Fria National Monument are designed 

to protect monument resources and the ―objects‖ 

described in the Proclamation. Protection of 

these resources and objects does not preclude a 

certain amount of public use and recreational 

enjoyment. The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act allows for multiple uses as 

long as the protection of monument resources 

and objects is ensured first. 

The proposed management plan will maintain 

primitive landscapes in most areas of the 

national monument that are not readily 

accessible from Interstate Highway 17 or 

Bloody Basin Road. The majority of the 

monument is designated as a backcountry zone, 

incorporating areas managed for wilderness 

characteristics. Many zones within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala planning area will also 

emphasize natural landscapes and nonmotorized recreation, although the plan will also 

offer opportunities for a broad range of 

recreational activities. We believe the proposed 

plans provide the best balance between 

protection of natural resources, cultural 

resources, and monument objects, with 

opportunities for responsible recreation as well 

as public education in support of resource 

protection.

Public Comments (AL-2): 

Comment: The Agua Fria National Monument 

and surrounding Bradshaw-Harquehala planning 

area is exceptional and the Bureau of Land 

Management is required to manage these areas 

specifically to protect their scientific and 

historical importance. Unfortunately, the 

preferred alternative in your draft Resource 

Management Plan will put irreplaceable 

archaeological sites at risk and could contribute 

to the long-term demise of the area's resident 

pronghorn and other sensitive wildlife.

(Individual, Durango, Colorado –

Comment: #990, letter #372)

Comment: Please develop and implement a 

protective management plan for the Agua Fria 

National Monument as well as other BLM lands

in the planning area. Native animals and plants 

and prehistoric sites should be protected. 

Grazing, motorized access, and new visitor 

facilities should be minimized or, better yet, 

excluded because of the risk to the monument by 

potentially damaging activity. (Individual, 

Buckeye, AZ - Comment: #942, letter #373)

Public Concern (AL-3): 

The respondent is commenting on the new 

identity of BLM-managed lands in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala area as being an 

outdoor natural resource enjoyment area for the 

growing Phoenix metropolitan area. The 

comment also expresses appreciation to the 

BLM for involving the public in the planning 

process which made the RMP the public’s plan 

as well as the BLM’s plan.

Response (AL-3):

As the population of the Phoenix metropolitan 

area continues to grow, the BLM-administered 

lands located within the Agua Fria National 

Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Areas will undoubtedly receive increasing 
Chapter 5

688

pressure. The management decisions proposed 

in these plans, after considerable deliberation on 

the part of BLM, its partners, and the public are 

believed to provide the broadest possible 

consensus to wisely guide management of these 

very valuable resources.

Public Comments (AL-3):

Comment: Perhaps the most important impact 

or effect of this RMP will be the new "identity" 

that it gives to the BLM lands in the BradshawHarquahala area as being an outdoor natural 

resource enjoyment area for the populace of the 

huge and growing Phoenix metropolitan area. In 

the past, these BLM lands have been viewed 

primarily as rural lands to be used for livestock 

grazing and mineral uses until they were ready 

for residential development. This RMP for the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Area, combined with the 

designation of the Agua Fria National 

Monument and now the development of its 

RMP, will change the future of these BLM lands

from suburbia to open space and public use, and 

the very effective way you have involved the 

public in the planning process has made this 

RMP the public's plan as well as the BLM's plan 

for these lands. (Individual, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #477, letter #204)

Public Concern (AL-4):

The respondent reserves the right to appeal 

issues and feels the BLM is responsible for 

ensuring that its selected alternative complies 

with all federal laws.

Response (AL-4):

We believe this plan fully complies with the 

federal laws concerning management of the 

public lands with the planning area. The 

management decisions proposed in these plans, 

in collaboration with a diverse public and 

cooperating agencies, provides the broadest 

possible consensus to guide management of 

these very valuable resources. 

Public Comments (AL-4):

Comment: The BLM is responsible for ensuring 

that its selected alternative complies with all 

federal laws, including but not limited to, the 

Endangered Species Act, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean 

Water Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and 

others. We reserve the right to appeal and 

litigate on issues pertaining to any and all of 

these laws. (Center for Biological Diversity, 

Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1602, letter #338)

Public Concern (AL-5): 

Commenters do not support the RMP. They feel 

the document strips Arizona citizens of their 

rights to use BLM land or any other public land 

for recreational uses and outdoor activities, 

including motorized events. Additionally, they 

feel it is not right to lock US citizens and 

families out of land that is owned by the tax 

payers and that restricting use is a disservice to 

the public. 

Response (AL-5): 

The proposed plan provides a diversity of 

recreation opportunities, as well as other 

traditional uses of public lands, throughout the 

planning area. Citizens are not being locked out 

of enjoying public lands. However, due to the 

high demand for recreation opportunities, some 

management will be applied so that uses of 

natural resources can be sustained and quality 

recreation experiences can be enjoyed by 

recreationists. 

Public Comments (AL-5):

Comment: I strongly urge you NOT to support 

this document that will strip all of Arizona 

citizens their right to use BLM land or any other 

public land for recreational and competitive 

motorized sports. It is not right to lock US 

citizens and families out of land that is rightfully 

owned by the United States. A country created 

and protected by these citizens. (Individual -

Comment: #627, letter #323)

Comment: We are going to lose some access, 

all of us--hikers, equestrians, motorized users--

we all are going lose some. So we need to 

recognize that to start off with because every 

time we develop an acre of private land the 

public land becomes that much more valuable 

for our recreation use and for the wildlife 
Chapter 5

689

habitat. And so we need to have that into 

consideration as it's none of our fault that we are 

going to lose something on these public lands. 

Being able to what ever we want, where ever we 

want--those days are over. It is unfortunate, if 

there was only going to stay only five million 

people in Arizona for the next twenty years this 

planning process would not be necessary. But 

that is not the case. (Arizona Wilderness 

Coalition - Comment: #1216, letter #226)

Public Concern (AL-6): 

Commenters note that the Natural 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) imposes a 

duty on BLM to inventory and evaluates impacts 

on the full range of ecological, cultural, 

aesthetic, and social resources found in the 

public lands. Commenters feel BLM should 

protect wildlife, scenic values, recreation 

opportunities, grazing, public access, and 

wilderness character in the public lands through 

various decisions. Commenters are concerned 

that BLM has not complied with these 

obligations, including analyzing potential 

cumulative impacts and considering ways to 

avoid or limit them. 

Response (AL-6):

In accordance with NEPA, we have evaluated 

the impacts of the alternatives, including the 

proposed RMPs, on a comprehensive range of 

resources and aspects of the natural, cultural, 

and social environments. We have also 

evaluated cumulative impacts and have worked 

closely with local communities in examining the 

consequences to nearby populations. We 

believe we have developed the best possible 

combination of multiple uses within the 

planning areas that both provide for a diversity 

of uses of public lands and meet the FLPMA 

principle of sustained yield. We also believe we 

have met the letter and intent of the protection 

mandate of the National Monument 

Proclamation in all alternatives analyzed, 

including in our Proposed Alternative, 

Alternative E.

Public Comments (AL-6):

Comment: The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., dictates 

that the BLM take a "hard look" at the 

environmental consequences of a proposed 

action and the requisite environmental analysis 

"must be appropriate to the action in question." 

Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1151 (9th Cir. 

2000); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens 

Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989). In order to 

take the "hard look" required by NEPA, BLM is 

required to assess impacts and effects that 

include: "ecological (such as the effects on 

natural resources and on the components, 

structures, and functioning of affected 

ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, 

economic, social, or health, whether direct, 

indirect, or cumulative." 40 C.F.R. 1508.8. 

(emphasis added). The NEPA regulations define 

"cumulative impact" as: the impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant 

actions taking place over a period of time. 40 

C.F.R. 1508.7. (emphasis added). A failure to 

include a cumulative impact analysis of actions 

within a larger region will render NEPA analysis 

insufficient. See, e.g., Kern v. U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (analysis of root fungus on cedar 

timber sales was necessary for entire area). In 

the context of this RMP, the decisions made in 

one area of this landscape are likely to affect 

other areas, including the Monument objects, as 

part of the greater region near Agua Fria. 

Accordingly, to the extent that management 

decisions in the non-Monument lands can affect 

the Monument objects, BLM must analyze 

potential impacts and consider ways to avoid or 

limit them in order to perform a NEPA analysis 

commensurate with the scope of the decisions 

included in the RMP. Recommendation: In 

developing and evaluating potential 

management alternatives for the BradshawHarquehala area, BLM should bear in mind the 

concept of multiple use, as defined above, in 

order to inventory and safeguard resources such 

as scenic values, wilderness character, cultural 

resources and wildlife habitat and create

ACECs. We are concerned that BLM has not 
Chapter 5

690

complied with these obligations and will make 

specific recommendations regarding necessary 

corrections later in these comments. (The 

Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2212, letter #343)

Comment: Let us please manage our lands so 

that they maybe enjoyed/productive assets they 

need to be used, and enjoyed, "productive 

resources". Cattle should be able to graze on 

these lands, Wildlife habitat should be managed 

and upgraded, for joint use. Access should be 

permitted, not restricted. "Except for Quads". 

Wildlife habitat should be improved on a yearly 

basis, cattle allotments should be managed to 

attain a well balanced mixd use of the lands. The 

land does not need to be managed by closure, 

"the easy way out". (Individual - Comment: 

#1187, letter #234)

5.4.2 OBJECTS OF AGUA 

FRIA NATIONAL 

MONUMENT

Public Concern (MO-1): 

Numerous comments state the public’s concern 

for protecting the AFNM by reducing or 

eliminating such activities as grazing, and target 

shooting. Citizens are concerned with the 

feasibility of Alternative E meeting the mandate 

of the Presidential Proclamation and adequately 

protecting the monument objects. Comments

suggest BLM is emphasizing the need for 

recreation, grazing, and other uses versus the 

need for preservation. Comments express 

concern that inappropriate access to resources, 

such as cultural sites, will contribute to harming 

monument objects. They note that recreation is 

not an object of the Monument to be protected 

and preserved. As a result, several comments 

request a new alternative for public 

consideration. 

Response (MO-1):

All Alternatives and decisions proposed for the 

monument are designed to protect monument 

resources and the ―objects‖ described in the 

Proclamation. Protection of these resources and 

objects do not preclude a certain amount of 

public use and recreational enjoyment. Though 

the Proclamation emphasizes the protection of 

these resources and objects, the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) allows 

for multiple uses as long as the protection of 

monument resources and objects is ensured first. 

We believe the Proposed Alternative provides 

for the protection of monument resources and 

objects, while allowing compatible uses and 

enjoyment of the monument by the public.

In regards to public use realized through 

interpretive development of archaeological sites, 

such uses would be limited to a small number of 

sites, within selected areas of the monument. 

The majority of the monument‘s area will be 

excluded from interpretive development. Site

protection will be an important consideration in 

the design and implementation of interpretive 

developments. Public use will be implemented 

in a manner consistent with the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470 ii(c)), 

which directs each Federal land manager ―...to 

establish a program to increase public awareness 

of the significance of the archaeological 

resources located on public lands...and the need 

to protect such resources.‖

Public Comments (MO-1):

Comment: Off-road vehicle tracks mar 

archeological sites and scatter pottery sherds, 

blurring the stories they could tell us of our 

state's ancient history. Our members are deeply 

concerned that cattle muddy the clear waters, 

trample seedlings, crush ancient artifacts, and 

prevent grasses from growing tall enough to 

shelter pronghorn fawns. We are also concerned 

that pot hunters and archeological looters disturb 

untouched sites, stealing our cultural heritage. 

The pressures of booming growth and an 

expected explosion in visitation threaten to 

jeopardize the area's wild character. The 

monument should be managed foremost so as to 

protect the objects listed in the monument 

proclamation. Other uses- such as grazing, 

motorized access, and new visitor facilities -

should be considered only when those uses do 

not impair monument objects. (Maricopa 
Chapter 5

691

Audubon Society, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1247, letter #321)

Comment: Please present a new alternative for 

public consideration that offers the prospect of 

genuine protection of these monuments. They 

are an outstanding part of our National 

Landscape Conservation System and deserve the 

most sensitive possible management.

(Individual, Prescott Valley, AZ - Comment: 

#385, letter #210)

Public Concern (MO-2): 

Commenters feel BLM should ensure that the 

range of alternatives is broad enough to 

encompass more protective measures of the 

monument, as dictated by NEPA and the 

Proclamation. They feel any alternative 

presented that can harm monument objects 

should be invalidated.

Response (MO-2):

In developing Alternatives, the BLM offered 

different combinations of management 

alternatives to address issues and to resolve 

conflicts among uses in the Agua Fria National 

Monument planning area. 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 was effectively 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 monument. Under all Alternatives, the

BLM provides for the proper care and 

management of the monument in accordance 

with all applicable laws, regulations, and BLM 

policy and guidance. 

The BLM engaged in collaboration efforts by 

including communities in the formulation of 

monument management alternatives. 

Workshops were held throughout the planning 

area to give citizens the opportunity to refine 

issues, discuss visions for the Agua Fria 

National Monument, and begin exploring 

alternative ways to manage the monument. 

Input received from citizens—both groups and 

individuals—were considered in developing the 

alternatives. 

Public Comments (MO-2):

Comment: We are also concerned about the 

range of alternatives that has been presented for 

Agua Fria National Monument. The range of 

alternatives is "the heart of the environmental 

impact statement." 40 C.F.R. 1502.14. NEPA 

requires BLM to "rigorously explore and 

objectively evaluate" a range of alternatives to 

proposed federal actions. See 40 C.F.R. 

1502.14(a) and 1508.25(c). "An agency must 

look at every reasonable alternative, with the 

range dictated by the nature and scope of the 

proposed action." Northwest Envtl Defense 

Center v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 

1520, 1538 (9th Cir. 1997). An agency violates 

NEPA by failing to "rigorously explore and 

objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" 

to the proposed action. City of Tenakee Springs 

v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 1310 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(quoting 40 C.F.R. 1502.14). This evaluation 

extends to considering more environmentally 

protective alternatives and mitigation measures. 

See, e.g., Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 

313 F.3d 1094,1122-1123 (9th Cir. 2002) (and 

cases cited therein). For this Draft RMP, the 

consideration of more environmentally 

protective alternatives is consistent with both the 

requirements of the Monument Proclamation 

and FLPMA's requirement BLM to "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(d)(2)(a). 

NEPA requires that an actual "range" of 

alternatives is considered, such that the Act will 

"preclude agencies from defining the objectives 

of their actions in terms so unreasonably narrow 

that they can be accomplished by only one 

alternative (i.e. the applicant's proposed 

project)." Colorado Environmental Coalition v. 

Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1174 (10th Cir. 

1999), citing Simmons v. United States Corps of 

Engineers, 120 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1997). 

This requirement prevents the EIS from 

becoming "a foreordained formality." City of 

New York v. Department of Transp., 715 F.2d 

732, 743 (2nd Cir. 1983). See also, Davis v. 
Chapter 5

692

Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2002). Under 

the Proclamation and the Antiquities Act cited 

above, all of the alternatives that apply to 

management of the Monument must conserve 

Monument resources first (and in particular, 

those resources that are "objects of interest"), 

and only then make other management decisions 

that do not interfere with the conservation of 

monument resources. Thus, in order to comply 

with these requirements, the range of 

alternatives cannot include management 

decisions that will undermine protection of 

Monument objects in favor of other resources or 

uses, such as recreation or tourism. To comply 

with both NEPA and the Monument 

Proclamation, the BLM must present a range of 

alternatives where there is variability among 

alternatives, but no alternatives would harm 

monument objects. For example, the impact 

analysis section identifies numerous incidences 

where proposed management actions would 

have a potential negative impact on a Monument 

object. Here is one, but these sort of impacts are 

identified throughout the document: "An 

increased number of users resulting from Back 

Country Byway designations would likely affect 

cultural resources along Bloody Basin and 

Constellation Mine roads. Potential impacts 

include the possibility of increased vandalism 

and accelerated erosion at roadside sites" 

(4.12.1) Draft RMP at p. 503. It is a violation of 

the requirements of the Proclamation that the 

BLM formulated an alternative that could be 

expected to have this negative impact on a 

Monument Object. The management alternatives 

presented for the Monument do not comply with 

BLM's obligation to consider a reasonable range 

of alternatives or to consider the 

environmentally preferable alternatives that 

would conserve Monument objects and/or other 

valuable resources in the AFNM. 

Recommendation: The agency should ensure 

that all alternatives applying to Monument lands 

have conservation and protection of Monument 

objects as the primary consideration. We will 

identify specific failures in the preferred 

alternative below, but all the alternatives should 

adhere to this recommendation. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2206, letter #343)

Comment: In each alternative for the Agua Fria 

NM, the BLM should have identified how the 

objects would be preserved and protected under 

the proposed management. Since it is clear that 

some of the transportation, grazing, lands and 

realty, and mineral resource alternatives would 

not protect the Monument objects, these 

alternatives should be invalidated, since they do 

not comply with FLPMA or the Monument 

Proclamation under the Antiquities Act. (Center 

for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #1556, letter #338)

Public Concern (MO-3): 

Commenter is concerned that the plan will not 

be subject to outside oversight due to the lack of 

an explicit framework for public participation 

and a formal advisory committee for the AFNM. 

Response (MO-3):

The proposed management direction for the 

monument is a plan-level decision. When 

actions are proposed to implement significant 

aspects of the plan, these will be undertaken in a 

way that includes meaningful public 

involvement and follows FLPMA and NEPA. 

The BLM welcomes the publics‘ interest and 

involvement in the Agua Fria National 

Monument. 

Additionally, the guidance and oversight of the 

Arizona Resource Advisory Council (RAC) 

includes the monument. Such guidance includes 

the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration. The 

Arizona RAC is developing off-highway-vehicle 

(OHV) land health standards and guidelines for 

OHV management, which would relate to the 

monument as well as other public lands in 

Arizona. 

Public Comments (MO-3):

Comment: Oversight - The AFNM is unique in 

that is does not have a formal advisory 

committee structure for management oversight. 

How will your plan be subject to some sort of 

outside audit or oversight‖ Not including any 

explicit framework for public participation in the 

RMP leaves a huge gap. (Individual, Glendale, 

AZ - Comment: #1931, letter #341)
Chapter 5

693

Public Concern (MO-4): 

Comments were received suggesting the BLM 

generate a plan that enhances public access to 

the monument in order for the public to 

appreciate and enjoy its beauty and historical 

value. The public wants to see visitor centers, 

roadside information kiosks, and interpretive 

trails for educating the public on the importance 

of protecting and preserving the monument in its 

natural state. Other comments suggest access to 

the monument was essential part of being able to 

experience the monument.

Response (MO-4):

While BLM wishes to provide opportunities for 

the public to view and enjoy the resources of the 

monument, the Proclamation makes it clear that 

the purpose of the monument is to protect those 

resources. The Proposed Alternative is designed 

to protect natural, cultural, and scenic resources, 

while allowing opportunities to enjoy the 

monument with low impact to its resources. It 

provides for interpretive development at selected 

archaeological sites, interpretive trails, 

information kiosks, and educational tours. 

Larger facilities, such as visitor centers, could 

adversely affect the scenic qualities and cultural 

landscape of the monument that attract many 

visitors. The BLM will work with local 

communities to support programs and facilities 

that can serve as gateways and information 

centers for visitors. 

Public Comments (MO-4):

Comment: National Monuments are precious 

places that protect critical habitats, resources, 

and historical areas on behalf of the public at 

large. Management of these areas should thus be 

designed to enhance public access to and 

appreciation of the resources that they contain. 

Landscapes such as that of the Agua Fria 

National Monument (AFNM) provide welcome 

respite from the densely occupied urban areas 

that most Americans inhabit, and a chance for 

residents of other regions and countries to 

experience the space and solitude of the west. 

While gaining a sense of place is critical to the 

experience of the visitor, understanding the 

resources on these landscapes is equally as 

important. This understanding is provided 

through visitor's centers, roadside information 

kiosks, and interpretive trails. Interpreted hikes 

are another source of information, but depend on 

the level of visitation at particular times of year.

(ASU School of Human Evolution and Social 

Change, Tempe, AZ - Comment: #1973, letter 

#325)

Comment: Access to any National Park is 

essential to its availability in order to truly enjoy 

and experience it. Destructing it is counterproductive in this endeavor. Working trails may 

be an alternative to road construction. Here, less 

is more. (Individual, Long Beach, California -

Comment: #886, letter #207)

Public Concern (MO-5): 

Comments suggest the BLM should work 

collaboratively with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and other governmental agencies to 

protect monument objects from activities that 

may negatively impact the monument.

Response (MO-5):

We have and will continue to work closely with 

other government agencies, and especially 

AGFD. The Agua Fria National Monument 

Proclamation says ―Nothing in this proclamation 

shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the 

jurisdiction of the State of Arizona with respect 

to fish and wildlife management.‖ In addition, 

the BLM and AGFD have compatible goals in 

protecting wildlife species and habitats. The 

proposed plan allows for the activities required 

by AGFD to accomplish its wildlife 

management 

Public Comments (MO-5):

Comment: BLM should work with Arizona 

Game & Fish Department and other 

governmental agencies to reduce the impact 

their activities may have on all monument 

objects. (Friends of the Agua Fria National 

Monument, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2070, 

letter #339)

Public Concern (MO-6): 

Commenter feels in order to fully comply with 

the requirements of the Proclamation, FLPMA, 
Chapter 5

694

and the Antiquities Act, BLM should revise the 

management purpose statement to include the 

full list of monument objects and present a 

complete evaluation of the proposed plan’s 

impacts on monument objects by specifically 

including each object in the ―Affected 

Environment‖ and Environmental Impact‖ 

sections of the Draft RMP.

Response (MO-6):

The list of wildlife species contained in the 

Proclamation was not meant as an all inclusive 

or exhaustive list, but rather as illustrative of the 

diversity of natural resources and wildlife 

habitats on the monument that are of scientific 

value. The ―object‖ in this case is not the 

individual habitats for each species, but rather it 

is the ―... expansive mosaic of semi-desert 

grassland, cut by ribbons of valuable riparian 

forest...‖ The proclamation goes on to describe 

the value of this object by stating it ―... is an 

outstanding biological resource. The diversity 

of vegetative communities, topographical 

features, and relative availability of water...‖ 

supports the habitats for the wildlife species 

listed, as well as others that weren‘t on the list

The impact analysis considered and addressed 

all the objects of the monument. We may not 

have itemized each object in each impact 

statement, but rather addressed what impacts 

might occur and potentially be affected by 

actions in each alternative. Since the Resource 

Management Plan is a landscape level plan, 

analysis is also conducted at a landscape level. 

At that level it is often difficult or impossible to 

derive specific quantified impacts. Actions 

required to implement the plan would receive 

more detailed scrutiny and environmental 

analysis that could more specifically address 

possible affects to specific monument resources.

Public Comments (MO-6):

Comment: In addition, because the protection 

of monument objects is the agencies' first 

priority, each of the objects should be 

specifically evaluated in the "Affected 

Environment" and "Environmental Impacts" 

chapters of the Draft RMP. While currently 

some of the objects are evaluated in these 

sections, evaluating all of them and specifically 

referring to them as monument objects would 

help guide the agency and the public on the 

statues and level of protection expected for each 

object. Recommendation: In order to fully 

comply with the requirements of the 

Proclamation and the Antiquities Act, BLM 

should present a complete evaluation of the 

proposed plan's impacts on monument objects 

by specifically including each monument object 

(and referring to it as such) in the "affected 

environment" and "environmental impact" 

sections of the Draft RMP. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2204, letter #343)

Comment: In addition, we are concerned that 

the purpose statement in 1.5.1.1 contains only a 

partial list of "Monument objects" in the wildlife 

bullet point. RMP at 27. Recommendation: We 

recommend that BLM revise the Monument 

purpose statements (1.5.1.1) to include the full 

list of wildlife Monument objects listed above, 

specifically: common black hawk, pronghorn, 

mule deer, white-tailed deer, javelina, mountain 

lion, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, 

neotropical birds, elk, and black bear. (The 

Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2205, letter #343)

Public Concern (MO-7):

Commenters are concerned that throughout the 

draft RMP, BLM has not effectively asked the 

right questions in its efforts to protect the 

monument, suggesting that the burden of proof 

for protection of objects rests with the BLM. 

Commenters recommend that BLM reassess 

their decisions, use a precautionary approach, 

identify how each decision will contribute to 

preserving monument objects, and amend 

proposed actions that fail the ―protection‖ test. 

Response (MO-7):

Every Alternative analyzed in the Draft 

RMPs/Draft EIS would protect the monument 

resources first, and then allow appropriate 

multiple uses. It is in keeping with legal 

precedence and BLM policy that other multiple 

uses can be made of the monument as long as 

protection of the monument resources has been 
Chapter 5

695

achieved. Through monitoring, patrol, and 

citizen assistance, we will ensure the 

compatibility of uses with monument protection. 

If necessary, through adaptive management, we 

can modify uses to address changing resource 

conditions.

Public Comments (MO-7):

Comment: Overall, we have a concern 

throughout the draft RMP that the BLM is not 

asking the right questions. Since protection of 

"objects of interest" is the primary mandate for 

the agency, the burden of proof is on the agency 

to show how every proposed action contributes 

to preserving these objects. Since Agua Fria is a 

Monument, the question is no longer "why 

should we take this management action‖" 

Instead; the proper question is "why shouldn't 

we take this management action (i.e. will the 

proposed action contribute to the preservation of 

Monument objects‖). As described in detail 

above, the protection mandate in the monument 

Proclamation is clear: "&hereby set apart and 

reserved &, for the purpose of protecting the 

objects identified above&" and that "the national 

monument shall be the dominant reservation." 

The purpose of the monument is to protect the 

objects identified. Recommendation: The 

agencies should reassess their decisions and 

identify how each decision will contribute to 

preserving "monument objects." Proposed 

actions that fail the "protection" test should be 

amended. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2208, letter #343)

Comment: The agencies should take a 

conservative approach and err on the side of 

protecting species and reduce routes density 

preserve core habitat areas. This 

recommendation is in concert with the 

"precautionary principle" of conservation 

biology, which states that precautionary 

measures should be taken when a certain activity 

or inactivity threatens to harm human health or 

the environment, even when science has not 

fully established cause and effect relationships. 

This principle is rooted in the recognition that 

scientific understanding of ecosystems is 

complicated by numerous factors, including 

dynamic ecosystem processes and the various 

effects of human activities. Put simply, it is 

easier to prevent harm to biodiversity than to 

attempt to repair it later. This is critical in the 

Monument where the agencies' primary duty is 

to protect "objects of interest" and endangered 

species. (The Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness 

Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: #2241, letter 

#343)

Public Concern (MO-8):

Citizens are concerned that BLM is improperly 

relying on "multiple-use" principles to 

determine and designate permissible activities 

within the monument because the explicit 

purpose of designating the monument was to 

protect and preserve monument objects. 

Accordingly, standard multiple-use principles do 

not apply to the monument, and any effort to 

adopt such a management approach to the 

detriment of historic values would be in 

violation of the Presidential Proclamation and 

the mandates of FLPMA.

Response (MO-8):

All Alternatives and all decisions proposed for 

the monument are designed to protect monument 

resources and the ―objects‖ described in the 

Proclamation. Protection of these resources and 

objects do not preclude a certain amount of 

public use and recreational enjoyment. Though 

the Proclamation emphasizes the protection of 

these resources and objects, the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act allows for multiple 

uses as long as the protection of monument 

resources and objects is ensured first. It is the 

opinion of BLM that all Alternatives achieve 

this. Through our analysis we find the Proposed 

Alternative provides comprehensive protection 

of monument resources and objects and 

reasonable levels of public use and enjoyment.

Public Comments (MO-8):

Comment: The establishment of Agua Fria 

National Monument set in place a new mandate 

that these lands be managed in a different way. 

The Presidential Proclamation requires the BLM 

develop a management plan that doesn't simply 

maintain monument objects in their current 

condition, but instead requires a plan that 

actively promotes their protection. We followed 
Chapter 5

696

this fundamental guideline in preparing our 

comments. (Friends of the Agua Fria National 

Monument, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2056, 

letter #339)

Comment: The BLM overemphasized the 

"multiple-use" mandate when determining 

alternatives for the Agua Fria NM. Public lands 

are only to be managed for multiple uses if the 

area has not been designated by law for a 

specific use, in which case that use takes 

precedence. 43 U.S.C. 1732(a). In this case, 

Agua Fria NM was designated in order to 

protect and preserve specifically identified 

historic and scientific objects. Therefore, all of 

the alternatives for the Monument should have 

first and foremost met the criteria for 

preservation and protection of Monument 

objects and only then provided for multiple use 

within these parameters of protection. (Center 

for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #1555, letter #338)

5.4.3 SPECIAL 

DESIGNATIONS

Public Concern (SD-1):

Respondents believe the BLM should use 

additional designations along with allocations 

to maintain wilderness characteristics.

Response (SD-1):

The complexities of land management in the 

planning areas result in some land areas where 

multiple designations have been proposed. 

Much of the planning area is or soon will be an 

urban and urban interface landscape. Where 

needed, BLM may propose and implement 

resource-specific management prescriptions and 

allocations from various resource management 

programs. These prescriptions and allocations 

will assist BLM in maintaining, protecting, or 

conserving a broad range of public land 

resources, while helping the agency satisfy 

increasing demands for resource use and public 

recreation opportunities.

Public Comments (SD-1):

Comment: The BLM has proposed other 

designations for these areas that have wilderness 

characteristics, which we also support. The other 

designations include: Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, Outstanding Natural 

Areas, and Wildlife Management Areas. These 

designations are excellent tools to focus 

management on specific resources and should be 

retained for Black Butte, Harquahala Mountains, 

and the greater Bighorn/Hummingbird Springs 

complex. These tools can be well-complemented 

with the allocation for wilderness characteristics 

because this protection achieves many of the 

desired outcomes for the other designations.

(The Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2262, letter #343)

Comment: Tools such as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC), Outstanding 

Natural Areas (ONA), and Wildlife 

Management Areas (WMA) should be used to 

focus management on specific resources.

(Individual, Tonopah, AZ - Comment: #680, 

letter #45)

Public Concern (SD-2):

Respondent feel BLM's abandonment of its 

authority to designate any additional Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs) is invalid and will 

ultimately be overturned in pending litigation; 

and, therefore, does not prevent BLM from 

designating new WSAs.

Response (SD-2):

The authority set forth in Section 603(a) of 

FLPMA to complete the three-part wilderness 

review process (inventory, study, and reporting 

to Congress) and establish wilderness study 

areas (WSAs) expired on October 21, 1993. 

Following expiration of the Section 603(a) 

process, there is no general legal authority for 

the BLM to designate lands as WSAs for 

management pursuant to Section 603. FLPMA 

land use plans completed after April 14, 2003 

will not designate any new WSAs, nor manage 

any additional lands under the Section 603 nonimpairment standard. FLPMA land use plan 

decisions may accord special management 
Chapter 5

697

protection for wilderness characteristics or other 

values through the land use planning process.

Public Comments (SD-2):

Comment: At the outset, we want to emphasize 

our belief that BLM's abandonment of its 

authority to designate any additional Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs) is invalid and will 

ultimately be overturned in pending litigation; 

and, therefore, does not prevent BLM from 

designating new WSAs. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2257, letter #343)

Public Concern (SD-3): 

An array of comments was received in support 

of the ACEC proposal in Alternative D to 

protect plants and wildlife, such as big horn 

sheep, throughout the planning area. In the 

national monument, respondents agree that 

closure of ACECs to grazing and OHV would 

have beneficial effects, even if ACEC 

designation is redundant. Respondents believe 

that ACECs will have as much protection as 

BLM is willing to provide.

Comments were also received supporting BLM’s 

continued management for the suitability of the 

Agua Fria River for Wild and Scenic River 

designation and designating a riparian corridor 

ACEC with prescriptions to close the area to 

grazing and OHV use, and to encourage revegetation of riparian vegetation.

Response (SD-3):

As a component of a monument object and a 

subject of the Arizona Land Health Standards, 

riparian areas are a focus of management 

regardless of any designation or allocation. The 

management objectives and prescriptions in this 

document are designed to achieve the Arizona 

Land Health Standards which will protect and 

restore riparian conditions in both the monument 

and the Bradshaw-Harquahala planning area. 

An ACEC within the Agua Fria National 

Monument will not increase protections or 

provide benefits to riparian vegetation zones 

beyond those provided by the Proclamation. 

Rather, the ACECs will have as much protection 

as BLM is willing to provide, as the document 

explains: "management of the 13,070 acres of 

ACEC in the monument would help improve

The condition of all riparian areas as determined 

by monitoring is presented in Appendix Q1 and 

Q2.

The protective management actions that were 

developed when the BLM designated the Larry 

Canyon and Perry Mesa ACEC‘s have been 

incorporated into the proposed management plan 

for the national monument. These areas have 

been and will continue to be managed to protect 

their exceptional natural and cultural resources. 

In addition, at the time the ACEC‘s were 

established, these designations provided for 

resource protection by restricting some activities

Public Comments (SD-3):

Comment: Special Area Designations: We 

support Alternative D and the creation of 

ACECs since cultural and wildlife resources 

would clearly benefit. A reduction in fragmented 

habitat from this interconnected set of ACECs 

stretching from Harquahala Peak to the Belmont 

Mountains would benefit wildlife especially 

species like big horn sheep that need large 

amounts of space. Plant communities would also 

benefit. (Tonopah Area Coalition, Tonopah, AZ 

- Comment: #1122, letter #347)

Comment: We (Friends of the AFNM) disagree, 

however, with the unsubstantiated conclusion on 

page 474 and elsewhere that ACEC designation 

is unlikely to result in any measure of protection 

beyond that provided by the Proclamation. 

Rather, the ACECs will have as much protection 

as BLM is willing to provide, as the document 

explains: "management of the 13,070 acres of 

ACEC in the monument would help improve 

range conditions by reducing vehicle traffic, 

damage to riparian vegetation, disturbance by

recreational users, wildlife stress, and potential 

vectoring of noxious and invasive species" 

(p347). Again, ACEC designation will prove to 

be a valuable and necessary management tool 

for resource managers and should be expanded, 

not eliminated. (Friends of the Agua Fria 

National Monument, Glendale, AZ - Comment: 

#2063, letter #339)
Chapter 5

698

Public Concern (SD-4): 

Respondent feels there are not quantitative 

impacts of ACEC designation on grazing 

resources listed in the DRMPs/DEIS and that 

there is a lack of discussion on why ACECs

proposed in Alternative C are not proposed in 

Alternative E.

Response (SD-4):

We believe the adoption of Alternative E fully 

protects riparian areas and forage. The 

Alternative and its prescribed resource 

allocations both conserve and preserve riparian 

areas and associated monument objects. 

Alternative E also ensures riparian and range 

resources will meeting Land Health Standards 

and will continue to be managed to maintain 

proper functioning condition. ACECs were not 

brought forward into Alternative E. BLM 

determined ACECs do not afford greater 

management or resource protection authority for 

monument objects. The Presidential Monument 

Proclamation fully protects the monument's 

range and riparian resources. Riparian areas in 

non-monument public lands will be managed to 

improve condition, and to meet or exceed Land 

Health Standards.

Public Comments (SD-4):

Comment: Lack of sufficient calculations. 

Additionally, the DRMP/DEIS fails to provide 

productivity information and calculations that 

support the adoption of Alternative E, which 

lacks designation of riparian-area ACECs or 

year-round restrictions on grazing in riparian 

areas. Section 4.16.1: Alternative C states that 

though the total acreage of the four ACECs is 

less than one percent of the acres allotted to 

grazing in AFNM, the percentage of lost forage 

would likely be greater because of the high 

productivity of riparian areas. However, there is 

no indication of the degree of quantitative 

impact these ACECs would have on the actual 

grazing resources available or why none of these 

ACECs are proposed in the Preferred 

Alternative. (Individual, Champaign, IL -

Comment: #1894, letter #201)

Public Concern (SD-5): 

The commenter suggests BLM considers 

designation of additional ACECs and WHAs to 

provide more protection for riparian corridors.

Response (SD-5):

The management objectives and prescriptions in 

this document are designed to achieve the 

Arizona Land Health Standards which will 

protect and restore riparian conditions. As a 

component of a monument object and a subject 

of the Arizona Land Health Standards, riparian 

areas are a focus of management regardless of 

any designation or allocation. ACEC 

designation within the national monument is 

redundant and unnecessary to achieve needed 

resource protections. The condition of all 

riparian areas, as determined by monitoring, is 

presented in Appendix Q1 and Q2.

Please see Section 2.6.1.1, which describes the 

analysis leading to the conclusion that eight 

tributaries of the Agua Fria River within the 

monument are determined as eligible for 

consideration as potential additions to the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In 

accordance with BLM policy, the BLM will 

manage these streams to protect their riparian, 

scenic and cultural resource values pending a 

decision on Wild and Scenic River designation.

Public Comments (SD-5):

Comment: The preferred alternative protects 

1.7 miles of riparian habitat in ACECs and 

Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) (Table 4-5, p. 

485). This is substantially smaller than the 

amount of riparian protection proposed under 

Alternatives C or D. Because of multiple risks to 

riparian resources from cumulative impacts and 

existing at-risk conditions, BLM should consider 

designation of additional ACECs and WHAs 

that provide more protection for riparian 

corridors. Recommendation: EPA recommends 

the preferred alternative be modified to include 

additional ACECs and WHAs that will provide 

protection for additional riparian corridors. (U. 

S. Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA - Comment: #2176, letter #396)
Chapter 5

699

Comment: Specifically, since 61% of the 

riparian corridor in the Monument is not in PFC, 

BLM should modify the preferred alternative to 

include the designation of the Agua Fria 

Riparian Corridor Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC), which 

encompasses the entire river corridor and 

tributaries within the Monument, encouraging 

revegetation of reduce OHV impacts to native 

vegetation, streambanks, and water quality, and 

help maintain Wild and Scenic River (WSR) 

values (p. 474). Wildlife species and habitat 

would also benefit, including the Gila chub, 

yellow-billed cuckoo and other priority species 

(p. 485). (U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, San Francisco, CA - Comment: #2171, 

letter #396)

Public Concern (SD-6): 

Comments were received supporting the 

designation of a Biological/Cultural Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) for the 

Harquahala and Black Butte Mountains to 

better manage these resources; however, the 

comments did not support the ACEC being 

identified as an ONA, which they believe is to be 

managed primarily for recreational and 

educational purposes. Some respondents also 

feel that attaining isolation from other users is 

not an appropriate desired future condition for 

the Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC.

Response (SD-6):

The change from an ONA to an ACEC has been 

completed for the area in question. The 

references to wilderness characteristic attributes 

have been removed from the Black Butte and 

Harquahala Mountains ONAs when not 

applicable to the required relevance and 

importance statements addressing the biological, 

cultural, and scenic elements of these subject 

areas. The areas are to be managed to emphasize 

protecting the sensitive resources discussed in 

the statements of relevance and importance.

Public Comments (SD-6): 

Comment: Initially, the Department [AZGFD] 

identified the Harquahala Mountains as crucial 

wildlife habitat, having a unique "sky island" 

vegetation community. The Department 

supported the designation of an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) for the 

Harquahala Mountains to better manage these 

resources. The importance of the biological and 

cultural resources in the proposed Harquahala 

ACEC is reflected in the relevance and 

importance section of the ACEC proposal. 

However, the ACEC is identified as an ONA, 

which is to be managed primarily for 

recreational and educational purposes. The 

Department believes because the original 

proposal was based on biological and cultural 

resources, as reflected in the relevance and 

importance statements, the area should be 

identified as a Biological ACEC with 

management emphasis specific to those 

resources and not as an ONA with an emphasis 

on recreation. (The State of Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1347, letter #401)

Comment: Concerning Section 2.6.2.2.4.1 

Page 198, column 2, 2nd paragraph, commenter 

stated ―Attaining isolation from other users 

Comment We do not believe this is an 

appropriate desired future condition for this 

ACEC (The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1370, 

letter #401).

Public Concern (SD-7):

Respondent does not support the creation of any 

ACECs; even those that might be targeted for 

the protection of bighorn sheep based on the 

concerns with ACEC designations and the 

potential threats to active wildlife conservation. 

Other commenters suggest existing ACECs, 

ONAs, and WMAs be retained for Black Butte, 

Harquahala Mountains, and the greater 

Bighorn/Hummingbird Springs complex.

Response (SD-7):

The ACECs proposed in the Preferred 

Alternative were developed to protect a variety 

of overlapping regionally significant resources. 

To provide the level of protection needed, some 

resource management activities may be curtailed 

or limited. The BLM believes that ―...active 

wildlife conservation...‖ will continue as 

needed, though some activities may need to be 
Chapter 5

700

modified to meet ACEC Desired Future 

Conditions.

Public Comments: 

Comment: Because of our (ADBSS) concerns 

with ACEC designations and the potential 

threats to active wildlife conservation we do not 

support the creation of any ACEC's; even those 

that might be targeted for the protection of 

bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep need more care 

than this designation affords. (Arizona Desert 

Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: 

#2143, letter #342)

Comment: Existing ACECs, ONAs and WMAs 

should be retained for Black Butte, Harquahala 

Mountains, and the greater 

Bighorn/Hummingbird Springs complex.

(Individual, Tonopah, AZ - Comment: #681, 

letter #45)

Public Concern (SD-8):

Respondent is against applying the ACEC 

designation to the Sheep Mountain.. Respondent 

states that the proposed Sheep Mountain ACEC 

(Map 2-66) is a known mineralized area with 

substantial copper resources.

Response (SD-8):

The Proposed Alternative does not recommend 

Sheep Mountain as an ACEC. However, Sheep 

Mountain is an outstanding natural and scenic 

landscape feature with potential for bighorn 

sheep reintroduction, Class II desert tortoise 

habitat, and other outstanding wildlife values, as 

well as opportunities for rugged primitive 

recreation in a nearly undisturbed environment. 

Though there have been mining attempts offand-on over the last 150 years, none have yet 

successfully exploited a mineral discovery in the 

area. As urban development moves ever closer 

to Sheep Mountain, and the outstanding values 

found there become scarcer, It may become 

more important as an open space feature than a 

mineral source. Under the mining laws and 

regulations, claimants would have the right to 

develop their mining claims. 

Public Comments:

Comment: In addition, the proposed Sheep 

Mountain ACEC (Map 2-66) is a known 

mineralized area with substantial copper 

resources (see files at the Arizona Department of 

Mines and Mineral Resources); the ACEC 

designation should not be applied to the Sheep 

Mountain area. (Individual, Apache Junction, 

AZ - Comment: #1889, letter #391)

Public Concern (SD-9):

Comments were received that support all of the 

ACEC designations proposed in the plan; 

however, respondents insist that special 

protections are implemented on the ground and 

not just designated on paper and that there are 

good management prescriptions that actually 

talk about the other uses occurring in the area.

Response (SD-9)

ACEC land use allocations and prescriptions 

will be implemented for each ACEC upon 

approval of the land use plan. Route evaluation 

and designations, along with on-the-ground 

signing will be completed with five years of land 

approval. The impacts of recreation uses and 

other land use authorizations will be carefully 

assessed and managed to limit or avoid impacts 

to important biological, cultural, scenic, and 

other resource values within respective ACECs.

Public Comments (SD-9) 

Comment: We support all of the ACEC 

designations proposed in the plan, but we insist 

that special protections are implemented on the 

ground and not just designated on paper. The 

BLM should ensure that these areas are 

monitored, managed, and treated with due 

respect. (Center for Biological Diversity, 

Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1576, letter #338)

Comment: The use of ACECs, outstanding 

natural areas are great as long as we have good 

management prescriptions that actually talk 

about the other uses that are going to occur there 

and not just talk about what we want there, 

addressing route travel and mining development 

and other such extractive uses. (Arizona 

Wilderness Coalition, Prescott, AZ - Comment: 

#1104, letter #76)
Chapter 5

701

Public Concern (SD-10): 

Respondent feels protecting existing ACECs and 

due consideration of proposed ACECs must be a 

priority in the RMP.

Response (SD-10): 

Implementation of ACEC management 

prescriptions will be a priority of BLM in 

implementing land use planning provisions. The 

extent and speed of the implementation process 

is influenced by BLM‘s funding, staffing, and 

workload priorities established by our 

Washington Office and Congress. ACEC 

management prescriptions, however, 

immediately go into effect upon land use plan 

approval.

Public Comments (SD-10): 

Comment: Under FLPMA, BLM is also 

obligated to "give priority to the designation and 

protection of areas of critical environmental 

concern [ACEC]." 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(3). 

ACECs are areas where special management 

attention is required "to protect and prevent 

irreparable damage." 43 U.S.C. 1702(a). 

Protection of existing ACECs and due 

consideration of proposed ACECs must be a 

priority in the this RMP process. (The 

Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2211, letter #343)

Public Concern (SD-11): 

Many comments were received requesting BLM 

to study tributaries of the Agua Fria River for 

Wild and Scenic River eligibility. Respondents 

feel riparian areas are critical to wildlife and 

are one of the most heavily impacted habitats in 

our arid state. They feel this designation would 

ensure protection of riparian resources and 

water corridors. Additional comments were 

received supporting provisions in Alternative E 

for managing for the Wild and Scenic River 

suitability of the Agua Fria River. Comments 

also advocate that BLM do the same with its 

tributaries. These riparian areas play an 

important role in the monument's ecological 

health and are protected by the Monument 

Proclamation

Response (SD-11):

The eligibility for Wild and Scenic River 

designation of the tributaries to the Agua Fria 

River within the Agua Fria National Monument 

has been evaluated and the results are presented 

in document Section 2.6.1.1. The evaluation of 

the Agua Fria tributaries resulted in the 

conclusion that the segments of several streams 

within the monument are eligible for 

consideration as potential additions to the 

national Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These 

include streams and riparian areas in Baby, 

Perry Tank, Lousy, and Larry Canyons. Under 

BLM policy, the agency will protect the 

outstanding wildlife, scenic, and cultural values 

that define the eligibility of these streams, and 

will ensure that they are maintained in freeflowing condition. This is likewise the case for 

the Agua Fria River, which the BLM has 

previously recommended as suitable for Wild 

and Scenic designation. The environmental, 

scenic, and cultural values that underlie 

eligibility and suitability for river designation 

correspond, in large part, to the monument 

values defined in the Proclamation. This 

reinforces the mandate of resource protection in 

these areas.

Public Comments (SD-11):

Comment: Riparian areas are critical to wildlife 

and are one of the most heavily impacted 

habitats in our arid state. Please study tributaries 

of the Agua Fria River for Wild and Scenic 

River eligibility. (Individual, Glendale, AZ -

Comment: #327, letter #274)

Comment: The BLM needs to propose and then 

actively work for the Wild and Scenic 

designation of the rivers and streams that exist 

within the AFNM. Wild and Scenic river 

designation is something that will mesh 

perfectly with the Monument proclamation. 

Baby Canyon (Bishop Creek), Perry Mesa 

Canyon, Badger Springs Canyon, Lousy 

Canyon, and Larry Canyon; not to mention the 

Agua Fria River itself are all excellent 

candidates for inclusion in our Wild and Scenic 

river system. Designation of these waterways as 

Wild and Scenic will also help protect the 
Chapter 5

702

endangered Amphibians and Fishes that live 

there. (Individual - Comment: #771, letter #46)

Public Concern (SD-12): 

Respondent feels the characteristics of WSR 

designation are impacted by livestock grazing, 

range developments, and water withdrawal, and 

these effects are cumulative. These areas 

deserve special protection from livestock.

Response (SD-12):

Continued livestock grazing will not affect the 

recommended suitability of the Agua Fria River 

for Wild and Scenic designation. Proposed 

management actions include seasonal grazing 

restrictions which would eliminate intensive use

of the river corridor during the growing season. 

For the segment of the Agua Fria River that was 

recommended as ―wild,‖ management actions 

required by a congressional designation are: 

―Livestock grazing would be restricted to 

current levels in  ̳wild‘ segments.‖ Although, it 

also states ―This action, however, may result in 

management constraints to other resource values 

such as livestock grazing and recreation.‖ The 

BLM in the form of the grazing decisions for 

grazing allotments has mandated a significant 

restriction of livestock access to the riparian 

areas. 

The Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers 

LEIS (Rivers Appendix, pp. 9-11) contains the 

following statements relating to the 

recommended designation:  ̳livestock grazing 

use would be limited to the extent practiced 

prior to designation;‘ and  ̳grazing allotments 

would be monitored to identify conflicts with the 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, and fish and 

wildlife habitat values.‘ Other management 

actions include coordinated resource 

management plans, designed to resolve resource 

conflicts, and reductions in grazing of riparian 

zones. Under BLM policy in Manual 8351, 

relating to Wild and Scenic Rivers, grazing is an 

allowable management practice, if conducted in 

such a way that there is no substantial adverse 

effect on the river and its immediate 

environment. Livestock grazing, if conducted in 

a manner consistent with BLM standards and 

guidelines that protect these values, as identified 

in the resource management plan, would not 

impact the river‘s suitability for designation.

Public Comments (SD-12): 

Comment: The Agua Fria River and the Wild 

and Scenic designation. The Agua Fria River 

was nominated for Wild and Scenic designation 

in 1996. As part of the press release about this 

nomination, BLM's then acting director said, 

"Designation of these river segments will 

conserve important riparian areas, which deserve 

special recognition and protection."(BLM 1996) 

Indeed, they deserve special protection from 

livestock, which degraded degrade and impair 

the river segments referred to in the BLM press 

release. The draft RMP states that "reaches of 

the Agua Fria River were determined to have 

WSR values despite grazing in the corridor. 

Continued grazing should not degrade values, 

and applying Land Health Standards should 

maintain or improve habitat characteristics." The 

wilderness characteristics and the recreational 

opportunities of the WSR designation are indeed 

impacted by livestock grazing. Water quality 

and quantity on the Agua Fria River is highly 

affected by livestock grazing and range 

developments and water withdrawal, and these 

effects are cumulative. (Center for Biological 

Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1558, letter 

#338)

Public Concern (SD-13): 

Respondent objects to designating Sycamore 

Creek in sections 10 & 11 as Wild and Scenic as 

well as Little Ash Creek in Section 4.

Response (SD-13): 

The BLM has conducted an eligibility analysis 

which is included in document Section 2.6.1.1 

Special Area Designations for the Agua Fria 

National Monument. Sycamore and Little Ash 

Creeks are regarded as eligible for consideration 

as potential Wild and Scenic Rivers. Eligibility 

determination is the first step in evaluating 

streams for potential Wild and Scenic River 

designation. The BLM will conduct further, 

detailed analyses to evaluate a wide range of 

factors that determine the suitability, or 

nonsuitability, of these streams for designation. 

Suitability studies include further opportunities 
Chapter 5

703

for government agencies, local communities, 

private landowners, tribes, and the public to 

express comments and concerns that will be 

considered in the suitability study and associated 

environmental analysis. Congress considers the 

suitability analysis in making final decisions 

about Wild and Scenic River designations.

Public Comments (SD-13): 

Comment: I also object to designating 

Sycamore Creek in Sec's 10 & 11 as Wild and 

Scenic as well as Little Ash Creek in Sec. 4.

(Individual, Mayer, AZ - Comment: #1459, 

letter #379)

Public Concern (SD-14):

A number of respondents are concerned with the 

designation of Bloody Basin Road as a Back 

Country Byway. They feel it may result in 

additional funding for the monument; however, 

these funds will be insufficient to cover the 

increase in management costs associated with 

this designation. Additional comments suggest 

the proposed Back Country Byways will only 

increase impacts to the road and surrounding 

resources because Special Area Designations do 

nothing more than provided extra notoriety to 

increase visitation. Therefore, any designation 

such as this must be coupled with a commitment 

for additional road maintenance, resource 

protection monitoring and patrols, litter 

cleanups, etc. However, the "improved 

management" from designation by increasing 

signing, volunteers, mapping, etc. can all be 

accomplished without designation and without 

the increased impacts.

Response (SD-14):

The Back Country Byway proposals have not 

been carried forward to our Proposed Plan.

Public Comments (SD-14):

Comment: The proposed designations for Back 

Country Byways (2.6.2.2.2.1 and 2.6.1.1) for the 

"Constellation/Buckhorn Mine Road" and 

"Bloody Basin Road" will only serve the 

purpose of increasing impacts to not only the 

road but the surrounding resources as well. 

Special Area Designations such as this do 

nothing more than provide extra notoriety for the 

purpose of increasing visitation and the 

subsequent increase in use. Any designation 

such as this must be coupled with the contingent 

commitment for additional road maintenance, 

resource protection monitoring and patrols, litter 

cleanups, etc. The "improved management" 

from designation by increasing signing, 

volunteers, mapping, etc. can all be 

accomplished without designation and without 

the increased impacts. These roads should not be 

recommended for these designations as a higher 

degree of resource protection can be achieved by 

not designating. (Verde Valley 4 Wheelers, 

Cottonwood, AZ - Comment: #1949, letter 

#400)

Comment: Bloody Basin Road should not be 

designated as a Back Country Byway. The plan 

does not analyze or state any benefits of 

designation, and the resulting increase in 

vehicular traffic will put undue pressure on 

monument objects. This is particularly true of 

pronghorn antelope, which must cross the 

roadway to access important fawning habitat.

(Individual, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #928, letter 

#298)

Public Concern (SD-15): 

Several comments were received recommending 

the Black Canyon Trail be added to the National 

Recreational Trail System and ―totally support‖ 

Management Actions to do so.

Response (SD-15): 

Application to designate the Black Canyon Trail 

as a National Recreation Trail will be submitted 

to the designating authority.

Public Comments (SD-15): 

Comment: Alternative E - Pages 204 & 205, 

2.6.2.2.6.1 Special Area Designations, 

Nomination to National Recreation Trails 

System: I recommend that the Black Canyon 

Trail become part of the National Recreation 

Trail System. I support the Management Actions 

to make this a reality. (Individual, Black Canyon 

City, AZ - Comment: #1313, letter #281)

Comment: Alternative E - Pages 204 & 205 

2.6.2.2.6.1 Special Area Designations
Chapter 5

704

Nomination to National Recreation Trails 

System -We recommend that the Black Canyon 

Trail become part of the National Recreation 

Trail System. -We totally support the 

Management Actions to make this a reality.

(New River/Desert Hills Community 

Association, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1540, 

letter #393)

Public Concern (SD-16): 

Commenter wants the BLM to add a line to 

Section 2.6.2.2.6.1 Special Area Designation 

emphasizing the need to avoid sensitive riparian 

when considering the placement of the Black 

Canyon Trail.

Response (SD-16):

Riparian areas and creek/drainage crossings 

traversed by the Black Canyon Trail will be 

placed in non-sensitive areas, designed to 

minimize impacts, or avoided wherever possible 

when finalizing the final alignment of the trail. 

We will add this prescription to the Black 

Canyon Trail RMZ.

Public Comments (SD-16):

Comment: My only concern would be with 

2.6.2.2.6.1 Special Area Designations. It might 

be good to add a line about avoiding sensitive 

riparian areas in the placement of the Black 

Canyon Trail. (Individual, Dewey, AZ -

Comment: #122, letter #113)

5.4.4 LANDS AND REALTY

Public Concern (LR-1): 

Comment received suggesting the proposed plan 

fails to outline prevention for future annexation 

of BLM-managed lands.

Response (LR-1):

The RMP identifies the lands that the BLM 

intends on retaining for management (as well as 

lands that are potentially suitable for disposal). 

The lands identified for retention would 

continue to be managed per the prescriptions of 

this plan regardless of annexation by any 

municipality.

Public Comments:

Comment: Claim lacks force of action. Affected 

Environment: Lands and Realty (p. s-xii) states 

there is no need for BLMs lands to support 

continued urban expansion. Adequate land for 

community growth exists in both Arizona State 

Trust and private ownership.‖ However, Section

1.3: Planning Area and Map Setting points out 

the annexation of more than 16,000 acres of 

BLM land by the nearby City of Peoria over the 

last decade. Though the DRMP/DEIS 

alternatives address anticipated pressures of the 

high rate of population growth, it fails to clearly 

outline what specifically would prevent future 

annexation of BLM lands by neighboring 

municipalities even after a long-term resource 

management plan is adopted. (Individual, 

Champaign, IL - Comment: #1897, letter #201)

Public Concern (LR-2): 

Commenter acknowledges that lands targeted 

for disposal are not adjacent to Indian 

reservation but would like to see Arizona tribes 

have the first opportunity to acquire lands 

prior to public offering,

Response (LR-2): 

Any of the Arizona tribes may approach the 

BLM about acquisition of any of the parcels that 

are identified as potentially suitable for disposal.

Public Comments (LR-2):

Comment: Although lands targeted for disposal 

are not adjacent to Indian reservations, I would 

like to see Arizona tribes have first opportunity 

to acquire prior to public offering. You would be 

surprised the interest. (Yavapai Prescott Indian 

Tribe, Prescott, AZ - Comment: #79, letter 

#101)

Public Concern (LR-3): 

Commenter prefers an exchange with the State 

of Arizona, if BLM wants to dispose of the public 

lands within the W-Diamond Ranch grazing 

lease.

Response (LR-3): 

At the time of this response, exchange of BLMmanaged lands for Arizona State Trust Lands is 
Chapter 5

705

still considered unconstitutional based on 

provisions for managing state lands in the 

Arizona State Constitution. 

Public Comments (LR-3): 

Comment: If you want to dispose of the WDiamond #05028 land, I would prefer you 

exchange with the Sate of Arizona which has 

land to the west that I have a grazing lease on. 

(W-Diamond Ranch, Skull Valley, AZ -

Comment: #20, letter #49)

Public Concern (LR-4): 

Commenter wants BLM to reconsider disposing 

of functional rangeland.

Response (LR-4): 

The lands identified as potentially suitable for 

disposal are scattered and relatively small 

parcels of public land. Through site specific 

NEPA analysis, if it is determined that the lands 

are valuable as ―functional rangeland,‖ the 

decision may be not to dispose of them.

Public Comments (LR-4): 

Comment: Land disposal would also reduce 

available rangeland by 4%. BLM should 

reconsider disposing of functional rangeland. (U. 

S. Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA - Comment: #2194, letter #396)

Public Concern (LR-5): 

An array of comments urges the BLM to develop 

a separate DEIS for land disposal. Comments 

stated that riparian habitat and water sources 

should be added to the list of retention or 

acquisition. Comments question how BLM 

arrived at 5,000 acres as a threshold for 

disposa. Comments also stated that the level of 

current analysis does not provide enough 

information on individual land parcels.

Response (LR-5): 

The lands identified are ―potentially suitable‖ 

for disposal. All disposal actions will include 

public notification as well as site/action specific 

NEPA analysis.

For purposes of analysis, BLM established a 

―threshold‖ or baseline for determining what 

parcel size might be considered small and 

uneconomical to manage. The lands identified 

are ―potentially suitable‖ for disposal. All 

disposal actions will include public notification 

as well as site/action specific NEPA analysis. If 

resources are identified in these NEPA 

documents that warrant protection, it is unlikely 

that the BLM go forward with the action.

Public Comments (LR-5): 

Comment: On page 93, the EIS explains two 

methods by which you determined which lands 

were potentially suitable for disposal. In the 

second method, you choose a size of 5,000 acres 

as a threshold below which land would be 

disposed of. We commented on this issue two 

years ago when we reviewed the preliminary 

draft alternatives for the RMP. As we pointed 

out then, 5,000 acres comprises almost 8 square 

miles, an area that can function as open space, 

habitat, etc, depending on other factors such as 

surrounding land uses. The final EIS should 

explain how that number was arrived at, as we 

are not familiar with any benchmarks of that sort 

used by the BLM. We also believe the BLM 

should look carefully at the larger parcels that go 

through this disposal "screen" for characteristics 

that would warrant their retention. (Western 

Lands Project, Seattle, WA - Comment: #1055, 

letter #14)

Comment: I would also urge you to not trade or 

sell any BLM lands to private interests for 

development unless it goes through a complete 

E.I.S not E.A.R process. (Individual, Prescott, 

AZ - Comment: #820, letter #157)

Public Concern (LR-6): 

Respondents request that the BLM show a 

parcel of land in T5N R1W sec 13 N 1⁄2 as 

available for disposal. Peoria may want this 

parcel for a park and trail, or as a school site.

Response (LR-6):

At the current time, all lands associated with 

AZA-22075 - Right-of-Way Reservation to the 

Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona Project Office 

are still  ̳reserved‘ to BOR for CAP purposes, 
Chapter 5

706

and are not available for disposal. We have not 

received notification from the Bureau of 

Reclamation or the Central Arizona Project to 

remove the parcel you describe. The parcel 

remains unavailable for disposal.

Public Comments (LR-6):

Comment: The letter is being submitted as part 

of the 90-day comment period in regard to a 

BLM parcel currently leased to the Bureau of 

Reclamation/Central Arizona Project in the 

North 1/2 of Section 13, T5N, R1W (Subject 

Site). We respectfully request that the final 

AFNM/Bradshaw-Harquahala Plan identify the 

Subject Site [North 1/2 of Section 13, T5N, 

R1W] for disposition should the CAP determine 

that a portion of the Subject Site is no longer 

needed for CAP operations. We have had 

preliminary discussions with City of Peoria as to 

utilizing land not needed by the CAP for trail 

and park uses. We have also had initial 

discussions with the Peoria Unified School 

District for a school site. One of the challenges 

to providing school and park sites in the area is 

the need for flat land, which the Subject Site 

offers. Most of Lake Pleasant Heights has very 

rugged terrain and it is a challenge to locate uses 

that need large flat areas of land. If there are no 

public uses needed for the Subject Site, we are 

interested in purchasing the remaining property, 

provided it could support development and 

incorporated into surrounding subdivisions. 

(Pleasant Views, L.L.C., Scottsdale, AZ -

Comment: #1071, letter #356)

Public Concern (LR-7): 

Comments suggest the preferred alternative 

should be modified to include purchase 

restrictions for lands slated for disposal that 

contain desert tortoise habitat or that are 

adjacent to the Agua Fria Riparian Corridor. 

Additionally, disposed lands that contain desert 

tortoise habitat should be restricted to 

purchasers that would provide a similar level of

habitat protection as BLM-managed land. 

Lands adjacent to the Agua Fria River north of 

Glendale should contain development 

restrictions to protect riparian areas and water 

resources from development impacts. 

Response (LR-7): 

Limitations for land disposal actions are 

described in document Section 2.7.1.2. In 

addition, Section 2.7.1.4 states:

―No net loss would occur in the quality or 

quantity of Category I and II desert tortoise 

habitat to the extent practicable. BLM would 

address and include mitigation measures in 

decision documents to offset the loss of quality 

or quantity of Category I, II, and III tortoise 

habitats.

―Compensation may be required to mitigate 

residual impacts from authorized actions.

Evaluate on a case-by-case basis all proposed 

activities, including the following, for impacts to 

desert tortoise population or habitats:

requests for rights-of-way, 

easements, 

withdrawals, 

other land tenure actions, 

range improvements, 

wildlife habitat projects, 

mineral material sales, and

commercial and organized group SRP 

applications. 

Mitigation for adverse impacts is permissible to 

achieve no net loss in quantity or quality of 

desert tortoise habitat.‖

These prescriptions would require compensation 

for disposal of desert tortoise habitat to achieve 

―No net loss‖ of habitat. No known or identified 

riparian habitat is included in the plan as 

available for disposal.

Any proposed land disposal actions that would 

affect the parcels north of Phoenix, along the 

Agua Fria River, would involve an assessment 

of potential impacts on riparian areas and water 

resources, with consideration of mitigation 

measures such as development restrictions.

Public Comments (LR-7): 

Comment: The DEIS states that impacts to 

biological resources from lands and realty 

actions for the preferred alternative are the same 

or similar as under Alternative B (pp. 306, 488), 
Chapter 5

707

which would dispose of over 10,000 acres of 

desert tortoise habitat (pp. 307, 487). Land 

disposal is expected to result largely in 

residential development (p. 616), which could 

impact vegetation, water quality through 

increased erosion and sediment yield, and soil 

productivity (pp. 294, 447,474). EPA 

recommends the preferred alternative be 

modified to include purchase restrictions for 

lands slated for disposal that contain desert 

tortoise habitat or that are adjacent to the Agua 

Fria riparian corridor. Disposed lands that 

contain desert tortoise habitat should be 

restricted to purchasers that would provide a 

similar level of habitat protection as BLMowned land. (U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, San Francisco, CA - Comment: #2191, 

letter #396)

Comment: Map 2-78 shows some parcels 

suitable for disposal that appear to be adjacent to 

the Agua Fria River. Lands adjacent to the Agua 

Fria River north of Glendale should contain 

development restrictions to protect riparian areas 

and water resources from development impacts. 

(U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA - Comment: #2193, letter #396)

Public Concern (LR-8): 

Respondent notes that land disposal is a type of 

action that is exempt from the General 

Conformity rule (regardless of induced 

population effects) so long as the applicable 

Federal agency has no practicable control, nor 

continuing program responsibility, over the land 

subsequent to its transfer.

Response (LR-8): 

Thank you for directing our attention to this 

aspect of the General Conformity rule. The

appropriate changes have been made to the 

document.

Public Comments (LR-8): 

Comment: The DEIS indicates that the General 

Conformity rule applies to land disposal if such 

land disposal triggers induced population growth 

that would increase regional air emissions in the 

Phoenix nonattainment area for ozone and PM10. The DEIS then concludes that BLM‘s land 

disposal actions satisfy the general conformity 

rule because the regional air quality plans 

account for the associated emissions increases. 

First, we note that land disposal is a type of 

action that is exempt from the General 

Conformity rule (regardless of induced 

population effects) so long as the applicable 

Federal agency has no practicable control, nor 

continuing program responsibility, over the land 

subsequent to its transfer. See 40 CRF 

93.153(c)(2)(xiv). (U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA -

Comment: #2183, letter #396)

Public Concern (LR-9): 

Respondent is concerned that isolating the 

Central Arizona Project (CAP) right-of-way may 

result in it becoming a magnet for crossing and 

utility corridors. Comments support withdrawal 

of BLM-managed lands for the area necessary 

for the CAP as several of the proposed 

management actions could result in adverse 

impacts to the CAP, which are not identified in 

the draft EIS.

Response (LR-9): 

Disposal of lands requires site specific impact 

analysis at the time of the disposal action. If a 

particular disposal action would potentially 

affect the manageability of the CAP, that would 

be an impact noted at the time of the disposal 

and would be mitigated appropriately at that 

time. Appropriate mitigation might include not 

disposing of the parcel, disposing of only those 

portions of the parcel that would not affect the 

CAP canal facilities, or disposing of the parcel 

but encumbering the patent by ―reserving and 

accepting‖ the CAP right-of-way. The BLM 

would coordinate with the operators of the CAP 

to help ensure that the CAP facilities continue to 

serve an important role in providing water to 

central Arizona. 

Public Comments (LR-9): 

Comment: All the alternatives except 

Alternative D propose to dispose of lands that 

appear to be within or adjacent to the CAP, 

based upon the maps provided. We are

concerned that isolating the CAP right-of-way 

may result in it becoming a magnet for crossings 
Chapter 5

708

and utility corridors. Disposal of adjacent 

parcels also removes any flexibility in locating 

utilities outside the CAP right-of-way within the 

utility corridor proposed in the alternatives. As 

noted in Comment # 1 b above, any use of 

Reclamation right-of-way would require our 

approval pursuant to right-of-way A-22075 and 

we anticipate we would likely object to its use 

for such a purpose. (Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1511, letter #399)

Comment: We [BUREAU OF 

RECLAMATION] have reviewed the subject 

draft EIS. As you are aware, much of the 

Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct (HRA) feature of the 

Central Arizona Project (CAP) is located on 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands 

within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

The use of these lands for the CAP was 

approved in BLM's right-of-way A-22075. We 

note several of the proposed management 

actions could result in adverse impacts to the 

CAP that are not identified in the draft EIS. Our 

concerns and other detailed comments are 

provided in the attached. Based upon our review 

of the subject document, and our 

concerns/comments, we believe BLM's policies 

governing designation of utility corridors and 

land disposals are in conflict with Reclamation's 

requirements to ensure proper operation and 

maintenance of the CAP; therefore, we believe 

withdrawal of BLM lands for the CAP would be 

in the best interest of both Bureaus. (Bureau of 

Reclamation, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1506, 

letter #399)

Public Concern (LR-10): 

Commenter requests BLM protect federal lands 

surrounding Wickenburg from ecological 

despoilment, and manage them in perpetuity for 

the enhancement of significant cultural and 

ecological areas like Vulture Peak, Caballeros 

Peak, and the Hassayampa watershed.

Response (LR-10): 

BLM is mandated by a number of laws to 

manage the public land in ways that protect our 

air, water, and environment. The Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act in Section 102, 

parts 1, 7 and 8 say:

(1) the public lands be retained in Federal 

ownership, unless as a result of the land use 

planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is 

determined that disposal of a particular parcel 

will serve the national interest; 

(7) goals and objectives be established by law 

as guidelines for public land use planning, and 

that management be on the basis of multiple use 

and sustained yield unless otherwise specified 

by law; 

(8) 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; 

The land use plan has chosen to retain the lands 

around Wickenburg in public ownership and 

manage to allow multiple use and resource 

protection. 

Public Comments (LR-10): 

Comment: Wickenburg is one of the last 

historical western towns in Arizona that has not 

been tainted by urban sprawl and pollution. 

Therefore, the following local organizations 

which comprise the Wickenburg Outdoor 

Recreation Committee (WORC) wish to go on 

record as requesting that the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) protect federal lands 

surrounding Wickenburg from ecological 

despoilment, and manage in perpetuity this 

federal land asset for the enhancement of 

significant cultural and ecological areas like 

Vulture Peak, Caballeros Peak, and the 

Hassayampa watershed. Supporting 

Organizations of WORC include the Town of 

Wickenburg, Wickenburg Chamber of 

Commerce, Wickenburg Clean and Beautiful, 

Wickenburg Cultural and Conservation 

Foundation, Wickenburg Hiking Club, 

Wickenburg Horsemen's Association, 

Wickenburg Saddle Club, Wickenburg 

Sportsmens Club, Desert Caballeros, Desert 
Chapter 5

709

Caballeros Western Museum, Hassayampa 

Bowhunters Club, Kay-L Bar Ranch, Robson's 

Mining World, and The Nature 

Conservancy/Hassayampa River Preserve. The 

following comments of WORC focus largely on 

the Hassayampa Management Unit (HMU), 

which contains the lands surrounding 

Wickenburg. WORC supports Alternative E, the 

preferred alternative of the BLM. (Wickenburg 

Outdoor Recreation Committee (WORC, 

Wickenburg, AZ - Comment: #1901, letter 

#398)

Public Concern (LR-11): 

Respondent is concerned that the language in 

Section 2.7.1.2 does not indicate an active intent 

by BLM to encourage partnerships with other 

entities that could assist in implementing 

proposed actions in the RMP. Respondent 

would like to see language that clearly promotes 

such a partnership.

Response (LR-11): 

Many opportunities exist, to enter into a 

partnership with Maricopa County, the City of 

Wickenburg, and other entities as appropriate to 

achieve the management goals set out in our 

planning document. The Proposed plan has 

revised language that attempts to clearly declare 

our willingness to partner with entities, 

including Maricopa County, to achieve long 

term management goals for the area, without 

limiting what the parameters of those 

partnerships might be.

Public Comments (LR-11): 

Comment: The language in this section (2.7.1.2) 

regarding the possibility of establishing a 

regional county park is vague, and use of words 

like "evaluate effects of long-term adjustments" 

and "accept applications from governments" 

does not indicate an active intent by BLM to 

encourage partnerships with other entities that 

could assist in implementing all the proposed 

actions in this RMP. The notion of a park 

managed by Maricopa County Parks and 

Recreation Department has been discussed at 

length during various meetings in Wickenburg 

over the past several years, and the draft plan 

does not seem to support this notion with vivid 

language that clearly promotes such a 

partnership. (Wickenburg Outdoor Recreation 

Committee (WORC, Wickenburg, AZ -

Comment: #1907, letter #398)

Public Concern (LR-12): 

Several comments encourage partnerships with 

Maricopa County and/or the US Forest Service 

to preserve the area in the northern part of 

Maricopa County that is east of Lake Pleasant, 

west of I-17, and north of the New River Road as 

part of the Lake Pleasant Regional Park. This 

would prevent development that results in a loss 

of wildlife habitat, visual resources, and water 

resources.

Response (LR-12): 

The BLM will work with any of the neighboring 

land agencies to achieve the desired future 

condition for the areas in consideration. 

Cooperative strategies need not be limited to 

Recreation and Public Purposes leases, which 

may be encumbered by existing mining claims 

and grazing leases. We believe it would be 

productive to work together with other 

government agencies, local communities, and 

organizations to provide long-term recreational 

opportunities, while protecting natural and 

cultural resources and respecting valid existing 

rights to use public lands. 

We have resumed discussions with the Maricopa 

County Parks and Recreation Department to 

explore cooperative opportunities to plan and 

develop a new Cooperative Recreation 

Management Area in the Vulture Mountains 

area south of Wickenburg.

Public Comments (LR-12): 

Comment: The following actions are elements 

of the RMP I believe would fit well within the 

mission of MCPRD, and would be areas where 

cooperative management between out two 

agencies might serve the public well: Potential 

County park in the Hassayampa Management 

Unit (HMU) - MCPRD has applied for a 

"Recreation and Public Purposes" acquisition of 

BLM lands south of Vulture Peak. We would 

like to resume discussions on this application in 

the near future, and determine the course of 
Chapter 5

710

action for creating a County park in the southern 

portion of the HMU (Maricopa County Parks 

and Recreation Depart, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1452, letter #350)

Comment: 11.Alternative E, Page 171, 

2.6.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty, Land Tenure 

Adjustments. I continue to encourage 

partnerships with Maricopa County and/or the 

US Forest Service to preserve the area in the 

northern part of Maricopa County that is east of 

Lake Pleasant, west of I-17, and north of the 

New River Road as part of the Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park. This would prevent development 

that results in a loss of wildlife habitat, visual 

resources, and water resources. (Individual, 

Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #1312,

letter #281)

Public Concern (LR-13): 

Respondenst are pleased with the way BLM has 

documented the public’s desire that the BLMmanaged lands in the Bradshaw area remain in 

public ownership and open to appropriate levels 

of public use and also with the inclusion of the 

―community visions‖ which helps strengthen the 

land tenure decision. 

Response (LR-13):

During scoping, land tenure, and especially 

retention of land in Federal ownership, was the 

most common comment received. We also felt 

visions created by each community would help 

frame the context of decisions within the 

geographic area of each of those communities. 

Both of those things had a significant influence 

on the decisions we made in the document and 

were presented as background information.

Public Comments (LR-13):

Comment: We are pleased with the way you 

have documented the public's desire that the 

BLM lands in the Bradshaw-Harquahala area 

remain in public ownership and open to 

appropriate levels of public use. The inclusion of 

the "visions" which the local communities have 

for these BLM lands is a really good way to help 

validate the land tenure conclusions of the 

report. (Individual, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#469, letter #204)

Comment: The Executive Order that created the 

Agua Fria National Monument in 2000, served 

to keep these BLM lands in public ownership. 

We believe that one of the most important 

impacts or effects of this RMP will be to provide 

similar protection for the BLM lands in the 

Bradshaw - Harquahala Areas. In the RMP you 

have recorded the message that the public wants 

the BLM lands in the Bradshaw - Harquahala 

Areas to be used as an outdoor natural resource 

enjoyment area for the populace of the Phoenix 

metropolitan area and as a buffer to help 

maintain the rural character and lifestyles of the 

local communities. Early in the planning 

process, land tenure was identified as a major 

issue. The planning process documented the 

public's strong desire that these lands be kept in 

public ownership for public uses. The inclusion 

in the report of the "visions" which the local 

communities have for these BLM lands helps 

strengthen the land tenure conclusions of the 

report. (Public Lands Foundation, Arlington, 

Virginia - Comment: #1170, letter #403)

Public Concern (LR-14): 

Respondents ask that several parcels in the New 

River area be explored for their potential 

inclusion. Additionally the respondents 

encourage BLM to continue working as part of 

the Black Canyon Trail system with the Deer 

Valley Unified School District to enter into a 

Recreation and Public Purposes agreement for 

the parcels near the New River Elementary 

School Parcel because the area is currently 

being degraded by heavy OHV use. The 

respondents agree with this plan as long as the 

sales are in line with the Maricopa County 2020 

Plan New River Area Plan.

Response (LR-14):

The lands identified are ―potentially suitable‖ 

for disposal. All disposal actions will include 

public notification as well as site/action specific 

NEPA analysis.

If resources are identified in these NEPA 

documents that warrant protection, it is unlikely 

that the BLM go forward with the action.
Chapter 5

711

Public Comments (LR-14):

Comment: Alternative E - Page 168 2.6.2.1.1 

Lands and Realty Land Tenure Adjustments -

Alternative E places the BLM parcels in the 

New River Area EAST of I-17 on the "disposal 

list," except for the New River 

Community/Kiwanis Park. The map is hard to 

discern but it appears that the parcels to be 

disposed are (UTM description was obtained 

from Jim Anderson of the Phoenix Field office): 

a. UTM 0394496 - 3753038, T. 7N R. 2 E sec. 

34 - just south of the Old Jack Ass Acres b. 

UTM 0394617 0 365337 T. 7N R. 2 E sec. 27 

near the Roadrunner Café c. UTM 0395033 -

3756310 T. 7N R. 2 E sec. 15 - just north of "b" 

d. UTM 0395717 -374364 T. 7N R. 2 E sec. 26 -

not far from Coyote Pass -Parcel "a" is a densely 

vegetated riparian area. It was historically used 

as a watering hole for livestock along the Black 

Canyon Livestock Driveway and as a swimming 

hole for local residents. We ask that this parcel 

be explored for its potential inclusion as part of 

the Black Canyon Trail system. -We encourage 

BLM to continue working with the Deer Valley 

Unified School District to enter into a 

Recreation and Public Purposes agreement for 

the parcels near the New River Elementary 

School (parcel "c" for sure and possibly "b" as 

well.) -Parcel "d" is subjected to heavy use by 

OHV users and as a result, has been greatly 

degraded. -Otherwise, we agree with this plan as 

long as the sales are in line with the Maricopa 

County 2020 Plan - New River Area Plan (New 

River/Desert Hills Community Association, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1530, letter #393)

Public Concern (LR-15): 

Numerous comments were received addressing 

the issue of land tenure. Respondents believe

BLM- managed land should stay as BLMmanaged land. Comments support retention of 

Dewey-Humboldt area lands in order to protect 

the watershed, open spaces, scenic views; and to

maintain a rural lifestyle along with 

recreational opportunities for present and future 

generations.

Response (LR-15): 

Land tenure (disposal or retention of land) was a 

major issue in the planning area. Retention of 

the lands you reference was due to recognition 

of their value in public ownership. The lands in

the vicinity of Dewey-Humboldt and Black 

Canyon City represent important open space and 

recreation resources to the local communities. 

Long term sustainability of these lands will 

depend on citizen participation in plan 

implementation and management of the land. 

Public Comments (LR-15): 

Comment: Representatives for the County have 

participated in many community meetings and 

the common theme has been protecting the 

watershed, open spaces, scenic views, 

maintaining a rural lifestyle and recreational 

opportunities. The AFNM/BH Draft Land Use 

Plan Alternative E reflects the overwhelming 

desire of the communities to keep BLM lands

public for multiple uses in the form of trails, 

equestrian trails, nature preserves, riparian areas 

and other such uses. The Preferred Alternative 

removes all 21,500 acres from the disposal list. 

This action not only supports the publics input 

during the planning process, but Yavapai 

County's General Plan as well. This plan will 

determine the future of our public lands for 

generations to come and therefore I am in 

complete support of the Draft Plan and the 

Preferred Alternative E. (Yavapai County Board 

of Supervisors, Prescott, AZ - Comment: #21, 

letter #48)

Comment: I would like to state for the record, 

my support for the plan and Preferred 

Alternative E. The Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Draft Land Use Plan for the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area reflects the 

overwhelming desire of the public to retain our 

BLM lands for open space and multiple use for 

present and future generations. Preferred 

Alternative E addresses the many points of 

concern that the public voiced: It removes the 

21,000+ acres of public BLM lands the Upper 

Agua Fria Basin (Dewey, Humboldt and Mayer 

area) from the BLM's disposal list. It preserves 

open space for wildlife habitat. It provides our 

communities with open space for recreational 

opportunities. It preserves the beautiful scenic 

vistas. It protects the historical, cultural and 

natural resources of the area. It protects the 

instream flow of the Agua Fria River through 
Chapter 5

712

the Agua Fria National Monument. It preserves 

the watershed and avoids further groundwater 

depletion. It lessens the burden on taxpayers to 

provide additional services needed for increased 

population. It reduces additional air pollution, 

noise pollution, light pollution and traffic in our 

area. I thank you for listening to the public's 

opinion on this matter. The BLM will have 

helped preserve the rural character of our 

communities when Alternative E is adopted.

(Individual - Comment: #449, letter #299)

Public Concern (LR-16): 

Respondents recommend the BLM apply the 

following criteria to identify lands which are not 

suitable for disposal:

No wilderness quality lands.

No ecologically sensitive or significant 

lands.

Lands containing high public values.

Land disposals should not be considered for 

counties that have sufficient private lands 

for community growth.

Response (LR-16): 

Section 2.7.1.2 describes factors that are 

considered in evaluating the suitability of public 

land parcels for disposal. These considerations 

are consistent, in most respects, with 

recommendations offered in public comments. 

Public lands were reviewed to ensure that areas 

with threatened or endangered species, critical 

habitat, wilderness characteristics, significant 

cultural resources, or other valuable resources 

will be retained in Federal ownership. Lands 

proposed for disposal near communities will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering 

resource values and public comments, rather 

than the availability of lands on a county-wide 

basis. In general, we believe that sufficient 

private and State lands are available to support 

community growth in Maricopa and Yavapai 

Counties. 

Public Comments (LR-16): 

Comment: We recommend the BLM apply the 

following criteria to identify lands which are not 

suitable for disposal: a. No wilderness quality 

lands should ever be disposed of. b. No 

ecologically sensitive or significant lands should 

be disposed of including lands with habitat for 

threatened or endangered species, water sources, 

critical wildlife habitat, and riparian or wetland 

areas. c. Lands containing high public values 

such as providing access to larger tracts of 

public lands, high visual resource management 

values, identified cultural values and sacred 

sites. d. Land disposals should not be considered 

for Counties that have sufficient private lands 

for community growth in the foreseeable future. 

Land disposal for economic development 

purposes are generally not needed if the amount 

of public land in the county is less than 90%. We 

emphasize that this is not an exhaustive list, and 

that there may be many other reasons to retain 

lands in federal ownership. Rather, these are 

merely minimal criteria for the lands that should 

not be considered for disposal. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2270, letter #343)

Public Concern (LR-17): 

Many commenters share their views on the 

importance of preserving the rural character 

and open space of the communities as urban 

sprawl increasingly impacts these areas. 

Response (LR-17):

The BLM land in the vicinity of many small 

communities in the planning area contributes to 

the open space and rural character of those 

communities. Retention of BLM land in public 

ownership as proposed in Alternative E should 

help to maintain the open space and rural 

character of these communities. 

Public Comments (LR-17):

Comment: I am so thankful and glad that the 

BLM's draft plan and preferred alternative E 

made it through and we will still have some 

wide open spaces. I dreaded the thought of more 

subdivisions! This will protect the flow of the 

Agua Fria River and preserve the watershed and 

avoid further ground water depletion and many 

other things. (Individual, Dewey, Arizona -

Comment: #49, letter #56)

Comment: I represent the Black Canyon Black 

Sheep Four Wheel Club as its only elected 

officer. Our group supports Preferred 
Chapter 5

713

Alternative E of the Bureau of Land 

Management Land Use Plan for the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. We want to see the 

rural character of this area and the corresponding 

lifestyle maintained even if that means causing 

unhappiness to a few greedy developers that 

would build houses on both rims of the Grand 

Canyon if they could get the land! (Black 

Canyon Black Sheep Four Wheel Club -

Comment: #11, letter #3)

Public Concern (LR-18): 

Several respondents urge the BLM to be 

proactive at acquiring inholdings and adjacent 

private lands. 

Response (LR-18): 

Acquisition of lands, including inholdings in the 

monument, is on a willing seller basis. We 

have, and will continue to make, acquisition of 

the inholdings within the national monument a 

high priority. 

Public Comments (LR-18): 

Comment: 2.7.2.3 We (Friends of the AFNM) 

urge the BLM to play a proactive role in 

acquiring both inholdings within the monument 

as well as adjacent lands that would benefit the 

Monument's objects. (Friends of the Agua Fria 

National Monument, Glendale, AZ - Comment: 

#2113, letter #339)

Comment: Management Common to Agua Fria 

National Monument (2.7.2.2, 2.7.2.3, and 

2.7.2.4) We urge the BLM to play a proactive 

role in acquiring both private inholdings within 

the monument as well as lands adjacent to the 

monument that would benefit the monument 

objects. (Sierra Club Southwest Regional Office, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1877, letter #340)

Public Concern (LR-19): 

Commenters are pleased to see that the BLM 

has a stated action of acquiring the 19,396 acres 

of state lands within the SRMA because it 

affords the public a vast array of recreational 

and educational opportunities, and protects a 

significant amount of open space and natural 

and cultural resource values.

Response (LR-19): 

An acquisition of the State lands within the 

SRMA would consolidate and improve 

recreation opportunities. 

Public Comments (LR-19): 

Comment: WORC is particularly pleased to see 

that the BLM has a stated action of "acquiring 

the 19,396 acres of Arizona State land within the 

SRMA through a variety of means and 

priorities." The State lands that are part of the 

SRMA will be targets for future development, 

and by addressing this threat to State lands BLM 

is making a statement on the value of public 

lands open space that the residents of 

Wickenburg will support, and will be utilized to 

maintain the open space values of State land.

(Wickenburg Outdoor Recreation Committee 

(WORC, Wickenburg, AZ - Comment: #1911, 

letter #398)

Comment: MCPRD supports BLM's preferred 

alternative (Alternative E) because it affords the 

public a vast array of recreational and 

educational opportunities, and protects a 

significant amount of natural and cultural 

resource values. This alternative will place 

almost 679,000 acres of land in "Special 

Recreation Management Areas (SRMA)" status, 

which is nearly four times the amount of SRMA 

lands under the next closest recreational 

alternative. We understand the recreation and 

resource protection management actions 

presented in this alternative, and throughout the 

plan, will require significant effort and funding 

to realize the full potential public benefit.

(Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Depart, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1451, letter #350)

Public Concern (LR-20): 

Numerous comments were received requesting 

archeological and ecological research become 

priorities and that acquisition of Horseshoe 

ranch should be made a priority for use as a 

facility for teaching and research activities.

Response (LR-20): 

Both archaeological and ecological research are 

identified as important management priorities. 
Chapter 5

714

Current and future partnerships will contribute 

to these efforts, which we hope will establish 

and sustain the monument as an important center 

for scientific studies and student training. These 

activities will also provide information useful 

for resource management and protection. For 

these reasons, the majority of the archaeological 

sites in the monument have been allocated to the 

use category of ―scientific use.‖ The Horseshoe 

Ranch has already served as a partner in 

scientific studies, by renting its facilities to 

house teams of scientists and students. 

Acquisition of private inholdings in the 

monument, of which there are several, will be 

considered to determine if an acquisition 

improves monument management and protection 

of monument objects, and will be subject to 

available funding and willing sellers. However, 

acquisitions of real property, such as buildings, 

must also be consistent with BLM policies that 

require a business plan and encourage the use of 

partnerships for operation and maintenance of 

such properties.

Public Comments (LR-20): 

Comment: Monument-based facilities for 

ecological, archaeological, and other teaching 

and research activities would substantially 

enhance the sustainability and breadth of these 

activities on the monument. Horseshoe Ranch 

would be an ideal research and teaching facility; 

I strongly recommend that its acquisition be a 

priority. (ASU School of Human Evolution and 

Social Change, Tempe, AZ - Comment: #1982, 

letter #325)

Comment: I am a member of the friends of the 

Agua Fria National Monument, a great group 

and I highly recommend other people to get 

involved with. We had a get together this last 

year at the Horseshoe Ranch, which is inside the 

National Monument. You have to cross the 

Agua Fria to get inside the headquarters. That's a 

beautiful place, and I would like to see if the 

BLM could entertain the idea of doing some 

kind of land trade with them to acquire that 

property so that the BLM could use it as an 

interpretive site, a place for tours, a place for a 

park ranger to stay, or whatever the case may be 

for in future. I think that would be a great 

addition to the monument that BLM and the 

public could utilize if they could entertain that 

idea. (Individual, Black Canyon City, AZ -

Comment: #23, letter #91)

Public Concern (LR-21): 

Respondents express concern for preservation of 

scenic vistas by not allowing new 

communication sites to be developed on BLMmanaged lands.

Response (LR-21): 

Any applications for communication sites would 

be processed through a NEPA analysis. This 

analysis would include a determination of 

impacts to the visual resources of the impacted 

area. 

Public Comments (LR-21): 

Comment: Utility & Transportation Corridors 

and Communication Sites: To preserve scenic 

vistas, no new communication sites should be 

developed on BLM lands. (Tonopah Area 

Coalition, Tonopah, AZ - Comment: #1118, 

letter #347)

Public Concern (LR-22): 

The respondents request that any consideration 

of development of multi-use corridors on BLMmanaged lands take into account 

constructability, safety, security, access, 

maintenance, and operations of buried utilities 

as well as potential impacts to an area’s 

environmental and cultural resources.

Response (LR-22):

The BLM took a closer look at the Black 

Canyon corridor and determined that from a 

geographical and practical standpoint, the 

alignment presented in the preferred alternative 

required minor adjustments and is reflected in 

the final document. 

Public Comments (LR-22):

Comment: The western portion of the corridor 

is described in the Lands and Realty, Black 

Canyon Management Unit section (2.6.2.2.1.2) 

of Alternative E. It states: Alternative E would 

adjust the western boundary of the Black 

Canyon corridor 1 mile west of the true center of 
Chapter 5

715

Interstate 17 and would widen the corridor to 2 

miles where it crosses the Black Mesa/Bumble 

Bee Cultural Resource Priority Areas as shown 

on Map 2-79. (Note: The Black Canyon corridor 

includes both the I-17 right-of-way and rightsof-way for other utilities.) An analysis by 

Transwestern of the topographic conditions 

within that identified corridor that certain areas 

would be present severe constraints for pipeline 

construction and operational access. For 

example, areas that exhibit elevation change 

features such as those in Yavapai County, T11N, 

R2E, Sections 21, 22, 28, 33 and 34 

(Transwestern MP 71 area) and areas that are 

similar to those in Yavapai County, T91/2N, 

R2E, Sections 22, 27, 33, and 34 (Transwestern 

MP 81, 82 area) do not exhibit features that are 

conducive to the construction and operation of 

buried utilities, particularly large-diameter 

pipelines. Transwestern's proposed route for the 

Phoenix Lateral pipeline at the furthermost 

location from the multi-use corridor is some 2 

miles west of the western boundary of the 

proposed corridor. This proposed routing outside 

of the proposed multi-use corridor has been 

selected because ground features that are more 

favorable to the construction and operation of 

large diameter pipelines. Transwestern also 

believes that this routing would provide 

increased safety for installation and operations 

personnel as well as reduce, minimize or avoid 

environment impacts. (Transwestern Pipeline, 

Houston, TX - Comment: #1496, letter #383)

Comment: Transwestern Pipeline Company 

requests that any consideration of development 

of multi-use corridors on BLM lands take into 

account constructability, safety, security, access, 

maintenance and operations of buried utilities as 

well as potential impacts to area environmental 

and cultural resources. (Transwestern Pipeline, 

Houston, TX - Comment: #1497, letter #383)

Public Concern (LR-23): 

Numerous comments were received urging the 

BLM not to allow any new utilities or right-ofways in the monument. Several comments were 

received emphasizing concern that there was no 

discussion of transportation facilities or future 

need to widen I-17 along AFNM boundary and 

commenters would like BLM to modify Map 2-79 

to identify I-17 as a transportation corridor and 

acknowledge the ADOT proposal to widen it.

Additional recommendations include but are not 

limited to: modifying the southern corridor 

boundary to match the AFNM southern 

boundary; minimizing impact to habitat 

(especially the sensitive pronghorn fawning 

areas on Black Mesa), soils, and cultural 

resources; having fewer corridors and narrower 

corridors that would preserve the viewshed, 

reduce the potential impact of animal-vehicle 

collisions, and the vectoring of invasive weeds.

Response (LR-23): 

We are committed to working with the Arizona 

Department of Transportation and the Federal 

Highway Administration, under the provisions 

of our joint Memorandum of Understanding, as 

these agencies plan for the improvement of the 

highway system that is critical to the people and 

economy of Arizona. 

In 2006, the Arizona Department of 

Transportation (ADOT) began to develop and 

evaluate alternatives for the widening of 

Interstate Highway 17 between New River and 

Cordes Junction. We are providing ADOT with 

relevant information on natural and cultural 

resources, land use authorizations, and 

monument values that could be affected by

various preliminary alternatives. The proposal to 

widen I-17 will require a separate specific 

environmental analysis or Environmental Impact 

Statement, which will include opportunities for 

public comment. It is important to consider 

public safety, the mitigation of any adverse 

impacts, and the protection of the resource 

values within the national monument. 

Map 2-79 shows the transportation corridor 

along I-17, but it was not clear. The symbol has 

been changed so it will show more clearly. 

Because roadway widening is not a BLM 

Resource Management Plan decision, the 

working relationship with transportation 

agencies that propose and conduct such actions 

is discussed in document section 2.13 –

Interrelationships. The BLM will address future 

widening projects on Federal and State 
Chapter 5

716

highways that cross BLM land or that is adjacent 

to the AFNM as they arise. 

The utility corridors portrayed on Map 2-79 in 

the Preferred Alternative and Draft EIS and the 

text referenced in section 4.7.2 are both correct 

and consistent. However, conditions since 

publication of the Draft RMPs/Draft EIS have 

resulted in reconsideration of the Black Canyon 

Corridor. We have chosen to remove the 

corridor from the Agua Fria National Monument 

completely due to potential impacts to 

monument resources. The Preferred alternative 

has selected a corridor location that extends the 

corridor south to private lands and west of the 

national monument. See document section 

2.6.2.2.1.2 – Lands and Realty in the Black 

Canyon Management Unit for more details and 

Map 2-79.

Utility corridors are allocated to constrain the 

location of future, yet unknown, utility 

development. BLM endeavors to locate them 

along paths where a need for possible future 

utility development has been identified and 

where the opportunity to minimize 

environmental impacts such as visual intrusions, 

impacts to sensitive resources and species, and 

impacts to cultural resources can be minimized. 

We also endeavor to locate them where actual 

utility construction is possible and practical. 

Through cooperation with utility companies and 

the Western Utility Group, and through our own 

review and analysis, we have developed a utility 

corridor proposal in our Proposed Plan we 

believe allows utility development needed to 

support the expanding urban growth of Central 

Arizona while minimizing social and 

environmental impacts of future utility projects. 

There are no rights-of-way or corridors proposed 

in the AFNM. Any new right-of-way actions 

west of I-17 would require site specific NEPA 

analysis.

Public Comments (LR-23): 

Comment: 2. The DEIS does not adequately 

discuss how BLM plans to address existing and 

proposed highway widening projects on U.S. or 

state highways that cross BLM land within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Planning Area 

(BHRPA) or are located adjacent to the AFNM. 

This point is particularly disconcerting because 

DEIS Section 1.4.4 (Page 25) indicates that 

FHWA, ADOT, and other agencies met to 

discuss future transportation right-of-way (R/W) 

needs, however these needs are not even 

mentioned in Section 1.6.2-lssues and 

Management Concerns. (Federal Highway 

Administration, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1417, letter #162)

Comment: 9.Alternative E Page 169, 2.6.2.1.1 

Lands and Realty, Utility and Transportation 

Corridors V Black Canyon per Map 2-79: 

―Alternative D - page 123 (2.5.1.2) is preferable 

to Alternate E particularly from New River to 

the point where the corridor verves to the west to 

follow route 69. This also eliminates the Black 

Canyon utility corridor from the Monument. 

Having fewer corridors and narrower corridors 

would preserve the viewshed and it would 

reduce the potential impact of animal-vehicle 

collisions and the vectoring of invasive weeds.

(Individual, Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: 

#1306, letter #281)

Public Concern (LR-24): 

Respondent wants the sentence, ―Though 

Central Arizona is one of the fastest growing 

population centers in the United States, there is 

no need for BLM-managed land to support 

continued urban expansion. Adequate land for 

community growth exists in both Arizona State 

Trust Land and private ownership‖ located on 

page s-xii, 2nd paragraph, to be clarified. 

Commenter recommends that BLM acknowledge 

that existing ADOT managed transportation 

corridors are within the study area, and may 

require future modifications to provide safe, 

reliable public transportation. 

Response (LR-24): 

Utility and transportation corridors are different 

than right-of-way corridors. Both utility and 

transportation corridors on BLM-managed lands

are allocations for future utility or transportation 

development. They constrain where future 

development will be entertained when proposals 

are brought to BLM for consideration. 

Corridors do not limit how right-of-way holders 
Chapter 5

717

conduct business within their right-of-way, 

whether it is within an allocated corridor or not.

We are committed to working with the Arizona 

Department of Transportation and the Federal 

Highway Administration, under the provisions 

of our joint Memorandum of Understanding, as 

these agencies plan for the improvement of the 

highway system that is critical to the people and 

economy of Arizona. We will work with these

agencies to evaluate construction alternatives, 

environmental impacts and right-of-way needs 

associated with the improvement of existing 

highways or the construction of new roads. 

The list of major highways in the planning area

has been added to section 2.13 –

Interrelationships, along with the recognition 

that continued urban growth will necessitate 

modification of transportation systems within 

ADOT rights-of-way.

Roadway widening is not a BLM Resource 

Management Plan decision and the working 

relationship with transportation agencies that 

propose and conduct such actions is discussed in 

document section 2.13 – Interrelationships. The 

BLM will address future widening projects on 

Federal and State highways that cross BLMmanaged land or that is adjacent to the AFNM as 

they arise

Public Comments (LR-24): 

Comment: Section Affected Environment, 

Lands and Realty, Page s-xii, 2nd paragraph: 

The sentence, "Though Central Arizona is one of 

the fastest growing population centers in the 

United States, there is no need for BLM land to 

support continued urban expansion. Adequate 

land for community growth exists in both 

Arizona State Trust Land and private 

ownership", needs clarification. ADOT 

acknowledges both Arizona State Trust Land 

and private land is "available" in the broad sense 

of the word, increased community growth 

necessitates increased public transportation 

needs, ADOT recommends that BLM 

acknowledge that existing ADOT managed 

transportation corridors are within the study 

area, and may require future modifications to 

provide safe, reliable public transportation. 

These modifications could include new 

corridors, highway widening, traffic interchange 

improvements, new alignments, bridge 

modifications, and others. (Arizona Department 

of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1432, letter #397)

Comment: [Section Affected Environment, 

Lands and Realty, Page s-xii, 1st paragraph:] 

ADOT recommends including a statement that 

"ADOT managed transportation corridors 

within, or adjacent to, the study area include: 1-

17, US 60, SR 74, SR 71, SR 89, SR 69, SR 

169, L303, and L1O1," (Arizona Department of 

Transportation, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1431, 

letter #397)

Public Concern (LR-25): 

When authorizing utility ROW, respondent 

wants to see the BLM do the following: 

Fully utilize existing corridors before 

considering new ones.

Require ―stealth‖ construction techniques 

on any new towers. 

Avoid construction in riparian areas. 

Include a stipulation that is the utility 

provider abandons (ceases to use) the 

equipment they should remove it and restore 

the landscape to ―... its pre-construction 

state.‖ 

Communication facilities should be required 

to co-locate on existing facilities whenever 

possible.

Response (LR-25): 

Many of the suggestions you have made can be 

found in the Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives in section 2.7.1.2 – Lands 

and Realty. In addition, a site specific 

environmental analysis would be conducted for 

any utility proposal. That analysis would 

include assessment of impacts to visual 

resources, riparian habitat, sensitive plants and 

animals, and other social and environmental 

factors. Mitigation would be developed to 

minimize impacts to all social and 

environmental resources.
Chapter 5

718

Public Comment (LR-25): 

Comment: Alternative E - Page 169 2.6.2.1.1 

Lands and Realty Utility and Transportation 

Corridors - Black Canyon per Map 2-79 When 

considering any new utility agreements, -Fully 

utilize the existing utility corridor(s), before 

adding new utility corridors. -For new towers, 

require "stealth" construction - color and design 

to blend in with the natural surroundings as 

much as possible. -Avoid riparian areas for 

construction of communication sites and utility 

rights-of-way. -Include a provision that if the 

utility provider abandons (ceases to use) the 

equipment, they should be responsible (perhaps 

through bonding) to remove the equipment and 

restore the landscape to its pre-construction 

state. -Communication towers/facilities should 

be required to co-locate on existing power lines 

or communication towers whenever possible. 

The objective is to take advantage of existing 

verticality in order to minimize obstructions to 

the view shed. (Look at Forest Service

requirements - they have required a minimum of 

seven carriers per tower/facility.) (New 

River/Desert Hills Community Association, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1536, letter #393)

Public Concern (LR-26): 

Commenters believe statements in the RMP are 

not consistent with discussions between FHWA 

and the Secretary of the Interior during a 1999 

field review of the AFNM prior to its 

establishment by President Clinton. The 

commenters believe that statements reflect a 

BLM decision prior to release of this DEIS for 

review, prior to full public disclosure and 

completion of the NEPA process, and without 

input from FHWA/ADOT pursuant to the 

September 10, 2004 MOU Amendment Number 

1. Commenters also noted that the document 

fails to mention the partnership established with

FHWA and ADOT by the 2004 MOU but 

encouraged BLM to fulfill their prior 

coordination commitment to FHWA and ADOT.

Response (LR-26): 

The section referenced is in the No Action 

alternative and contains language that guides 

current management in the Interim Management 

Guidance for the Agua Fria National Monument. 

The language in the Interim Management 

Guidance states that ―new rights-of-way may be 

permitted within the boundaries of existing 

rights-of-way, where site-specific NEPA 

analysis determines that impacts to the values 

for which the Monument was designated would 

be negligible.‖ The eastern boundary of the 

Interstate 17 right-of-way is also the western 

boundary of the monument. 

The BLM Phoenix District is not aware of 

discussions between FHWA and the Secretary of 

Interior in 1999. There is not any special 

language recognizing or otherwise making 

special accommodation for FHWA and 

widening of I-17 in the Presidential 

Proclamation (see Appendix A). FHWA, 

ADOT, and any other agency would need to 

apply and follow normal NEPA procedures to 

propose and conduct widening or other 

maintenance or modification projects along I-17, 

or any other transportation right-of-way in the 

planning area. For projects that might impact 

the national monument or other Special Area 

Designations, other procedures may be required 

(4F permit) for application in addition to NEPA 

analysis.

Numerous agencies were invited to participate 

as cooperating agencies by a letter from the 

BLM Arizona State Office. The Phoenix 

District does not have a list of the agencies 

invited, and apologize if yours was overlooked. 

We made several attempts at finding interested 

agencies, companies, and individuals to identify 

who should receive review copies of the 

document directly from us. Again we apologize 

for not finding you in that process, but we are 

pleased you did receive and review a copy of the 

document.

Public Comments (LR-26): 

Comment: 4. Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1.2, Page 

39: The text contains a subsection entitled 

"Utility and Transportation Corridors and 

Communication Sites" relative to the AFNM. 

The second sentence of the first paragraph 

states: "No new or widened transportation 

corridors would be designated in the 

monument." This statement is not consistent 

with discussions between FHWA and the 
Chapter 5

719

Secretary of the Interior during a 1999 field 

review of the AFNM prior to its establishment 

by President Clinton in January 2000. 

Furthermore, this statement would appear to 

reflect a BLM decision prior to release of this 

DEIS for review, prior to full public disclosure 

and completion of the NEPA process, and 

without input from FHWA/ADOT pursuant to 

the September 10, 2004 MOU Amendment 

Number 1. (Federal Highway Administration, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1419, letter #162)

Comment: 1. Although the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Arizona Department of 

Transportation (ADOT), and FHWA executed a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 

September 2004 regarding project coordination 

and cooperation, the FHWA Arizona Division 

Office is concerned that the MOU process has 

not been followed because it was not asked to 

participate as a cooperating federal agency and 

did not directly receive a review copy of the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

(Federal Highway Administration, Phoenix, AZ 

- Comment: #1414, letter #162)

Public Concern (LR-27): 

Several comments were received regarding 

expanding and widening the CAP utility 

corridor, specifically including the right-of-way 

near the Bighorn Mountains.

Response (LR-27): 

Any additional rights-of-way within the CAP 

corridor will have site specific NEPA analysis 

which will include a visual resource analysis. .

Thank you for making us aware of the proposed 

use of the CAP corridor as a long-distance 

recreational trail. The designation of the CAP as 

a National Recreation Trail would be considered 

in the site specific impact analysis of any 

activity authorized by BLM that might affect the 

trail, including utility or disposal proposal in its 

vicinity.

We will continue to coordinate with the Bureau 

of Reclamation to ensure that our management 

actions take into consideration the long-term 

operation of the Central Arizona Project 

aqueduct and its associated recreational uses.

Public Comments (LR-27): 

Comment: The utility R-O-W that follows the 

CAP near the Bighorn Mts., should not be 

widened as it will negatively impact the 

viewshed. The utility R-O-W should not be 

widened to include the southeastern boundary of 

the AFNM. (Individual, New River, AZ -

Comment: #972, letter #360)

Comment: Please note the CAP Trail has been a 

nationally designated recreation trail in the 

National Trail System since June 2003. The 

long-term goal is to use the right-of-way of the 

CAP from the California state line to Tucson, 

Arizona, for a 336-mile recreational trail. A 

portion of this trail is already under construction 

in Pima County and will represent a key link to 

major trails in Pima County and the Tucson 

metro area. The City of Scottsdale held a public 

meeting to discuss the trail system, bringing 

together representatives of several cities, the 

Bureau of Reclamation, the Central Arizona 

Water Conservation District, Arizona Dept. of 

Transportation, and Maricopa and Pima 

Counties. Designation and use of the proposed Imile wide CAP utility corridor and/or disposal 

of lands abutting the CAP could adversely affect 

this planned use. (Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1515, letter #399)

Public Concern (LR-28): 

Comments were received addressing the use of 

BLM-managed land adjacent to the CAP rightof way for a utility corridor. Commenters want 

construction, maintenance, and presence of 

utilities to be restricted to the downslope side of 

the CAP in order to protect the canal, water 

quality, and existing drainage patterns. 

Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation 

suggests that they will deny any lateral 

encroachments within the CAP right-of-way and 

prefer right-angle crossings of the CAP.

Response (LR-28): 

Utility corridors are designed to constrain the 

locations of future utility proposals and are 

suitable to accommodate more than one type of 
Chapter 5

720

right-of-way or one or more rights-of-way which 

are similar, identical, or compatible. We 

understand that the facilities of the Central 

Arizona Project serve a critical role in sustaining 

the populations and economies of Phoenix, 

Tucson, and other communities. We will 

therefore coordinate closely with the Bureau of 

Reclamation in evaluating any proposals to site 

new utilities within the CAP corridor. We will 

also take into account your recommendation to 

site any new facilities in areas downslope of the 

canal, in order to reduce the possibility of 

damage from changes in natural drainage 

patterns. Specific impacts of right-of-way 

proposals would be analyzed in an appropriate 

level NEPA document at the time of the 

proposal. It is the policy of the BLM to colocate utilities as much as practical so as to 

minimize the environmental, social, and visual 

impacts of such actions. At the same time, it is 

the policy of BLM to modify, mitigate, or deny 

proposals that would have a deleterious affect on 

other utilities within an established utility 

corridor. It is the opinion of the Phoenix District 

that the facilities associated with the Central 

Arizona Project Canal (CAP) would be 

addressed and protected in the analysis and 

approval process associated with another utility 

within the proposed corridor. Use of BLMmanaged land upslope of the CAP will include 

stipulations for authorized activities upslope of 

the CAP to ensure existing drainage patterns are 

not changed.

Public Comments (LR-28): 

Comment: In addition, we respectfully request 

that use of BLM land adjacent to the CAP rightof-way for a utility corridor be restricted to the 

downslope (canal right, looking downstream) 

side. We have concerns that construction, 

maintenance, and the presence of utilities 

upslope of the CAP could result in damage to 

the canal itself, changes to the drainage patterns 

that could adversely affect the canal 

embankment, and degradation of CAP water 

quality. (Bureau of Reclamation, Glendale, AZ -

Comment: #1509, letter #399)

Comment: On Page 278, section 2.9.3. Standard 

Operating Procedures, Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, Utility and Transportation 

Corridors and Communication Sites, the 

document explains how BLM designates utility 

corridors. The text states, in part, "A corridor is 

defined only if it contains or is planned for one 

or more of the following major facilities." These 

include electrical transmission facilities having a 

capacity of 115 kV or greater voltage, and 

significant canals that provide delivery of water 

to urban areas. We now understand BLM's 

rationale for designating our right-of-way as a 

utility corridor; however, use of the CAP for this 

purpose is in conflict with use of the corridor for 

the CAP. In constructing the CAP, we acquired 

private lands in fee specifically to eliminate 

conflicts with other uses and potential 

encroachment from other utilities. Our own 

policy is to deny lateral encroachments within 

our CAP right-of-way; we prefer right-angle 

crossings of the CAP. Consistent with right-ofway A-22075, any use of Reclamation right-ofway would require our approval and we 

anticipate we would not approve use of it for a 

utility corridor. (Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1508, letter #399)

Public Concern (LR-29): 

An array of comments was received asking why 

only SR 74 and SR 69 are identified as having a 

specific one-mile wide corridor width. 

Respondents requests that all State highways be 

considered as corridors, with the understanding 

that there are corridors where a large distance, 

or a variable distance, separates the existing 

center of the right-of-way, and that the 1⁄4 mile 

on either side of the highway centerline is 

applied consistently for planning purposes. 

Response (LR-29): 

Although each state highway in the planning 

area does not receive specific mention, all are 

regarded as transportation corridors. Thank you 

for pointing out that there are corridors where 

variable distances separate the existing center 

and widths of rights-of-way. State Routes 74

and 69, which connect Phoenix with the growing 

communities of Wickenburg and Prescott, are 

within the referenced Management Units, so 

they are discussed in conjunction with those 

management units. Other transportation 

corridors were specifically mentioned in other 
Chapter 5

721

management units, for example, in section 

2.6.2.2.3.2 – Lands and Realty, we mention the 

transportation corridors along US 89, US 60, the 

Wickenburg Bypass and the CanaMex highway 

corridor.

Public Comments (LR-29): 

Comment: Section 2.7.1 "Land Use 

Allocations", Page 212: "In response to a 

projected regional transportation demand, 

designate all State highway system routes 

(Interstate, U.S. routes, and Arizona State 

routes) as transportation corridors in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

Specifically, facilities significant enough to be 

the basis for corridor designation are the 

following: natural gas and other pipelines at 

least 10 inches in diameter, electric transmission 

facilities accommodating 115 kV lines or greater 

voltage, and significant canals delivering water 

to urban areas." ADOT requests that BLM 

designate 1-17 as transportation corridor in the 

AFNM planning area. ;' (Arizona Department of 

Transportation, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1442, 

letter #397)

Comment: Section 2.6.2.2.2.2 Lands and 

Realty, Castle Hot Springs MU, Utility and 

Transportation corridors: Page 180: The 

sentence "All State highway system routes 

would be designated as transportation corridors, 

including a new 1-mile-wide corridor along SR 

74, 1/2 mile on either side of the highway 

centerline." needs clarification. ADOT would 

like to know why only SR 74 (and SR 69) is 

identified as having a specific one-mile wide 

corridor width. ADOT requests that all State 

highways be considered as corridors, with the 

understanding that there are corridors where a 

larger distance, or a variable distance separates 

the existing center of the right-of-way, and that 

the 1/4 mile on either side of the highway 

centerline is applied consistently for planning 

purposes. (Arizona Department of 

Transportation, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1438, 

letter #397)

Public Concern (LR-30): 

Respondent feels more study is needed to 

determine impact of a utility corridor near 

Bumble Bee/Crown King Road on riparian 

areas.

Response (LR-30): 

Utility Corridor decisions in an RMP are 

designed to constrain future utility proposals by 

limiting development to certain areas. Impacts 

resulting from a proposed utility would be 

analyzed and mitigated at the time of the 

proposal. It is impossible to assess impacts of 

future proposals without specific information 

regarding the type, size, location, and other 

specifics of the proposal. Generally we seek to 

avoid impacts to riparian areas. Any proposal 

for a new utility line would include analyses of 

potential impacts on riparian zones and project 

design or mitigation measures that could be 

implemented to avoid or reduce impacts. 

Public Comments (LR-30): 

Comment: have an additional concern aside 

from the monument of the proposed utility 

corridors and the impact on riparian areas in the 

Bumble Bee/Crown King Road area and feel 

that although I know we have done many 

planning meetings - many people are not aware 

of this proposal and would object. I feel more 

study is needed in this area. (Individual -

Comment: #312, letter #171)

Public Concern (LR-31): 

Commenter feels BLM should evaluate the 

impacts of corridors in the monument to 

corridors outside the monument through a 

landscape-scale cumulative impact analysis.

Response (LR-31): 

There are no rights-of-way or corridors proposed 

in the AFNM. Any new right-of-way actions 

west of I-17 would require site specific NEPA 

analysis.

Public Comments (LR-31): 

Comment: Since this is a rapidly growing area, 

there will be significant pressure on the BLM to 

grant rights-of-way to growing utilities. If new 

ROWs are proposed for the Monument, it should 

be only as a last resort because the alternative is 

to create a new corridor/ROW outside the 
Chapter 5

722

Monument that would impact previously 

undisturbed area, such as wilderness-quality 

lands or critical wildlife habitat. This would 

require BLM to perform a landscape-scale 

cumulative impact analysis and make a decision 

considering landscape-level effects. 

Recommendation: We recommend that the BLM 

evaluate all of the impacts described above, and 

compare them in a cumulative impact analysis to 

evaluate the best manner to have the least impact 

possible. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2268, letter #343)

Public Concern (LR-32): 

Respondent wants to know what the centerline is 

for the Central Arizona Project Hayden-Rhodes 

Aqueduct (formerly Granite Reef Aqueduct).

Response (LR-32): 

The Utility Corridor in the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative A) is centered on the 

Central Arizona Project canal and extends 1⁄2 

mile either side of the canal.

Public Comments (LR-32): 

Comment: 1. Page 44, section 2.2.2.2. 

Alternative A Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, Lands and Realty, Utility and 

Transportation Corridors and Communications 

Sites. a. Table 2-1. Use Corridors within Lower 

Gila North Planning Area. This table indicates 

8LM has designated the Central Arizona Project 

Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct (formerly Granite 

Reef Aqueduct), as a multiple-use corridor with 

a width of one mile. This would be retained 

under Alternative A, the No Action alternative. 

Upon what center line is this 1-mile width 

based: 1/2 mile on either side of the aqueduct, 1 

mile north of the aqueduct, or 1 mile south of the 

aqueduct‖ (Bureau of Reclamation, Glendale, 

AZ - Comment: #1507, letter #399)

Public Concern (LR-33): 

Several comments request BLM to identify 

administrative or management actions for 

transportation corridors and facilities, as are 

provided for utilities and communications 

facilities. 

Response (LR-33): 

Section 2.13— Interrelationships, has been 

modified to acknowledge the relationship 

between BLM, ADOT, and FHWA as outlined 

in Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 

AZ-931-0309 AMENDMENT #2, signed March 

21, 2006.

Public Comments (LR-33): 

Comment: 10. Chapter 2, Section 2.7 .iManagement Common to Both Planning Areas, 

"Land Use Allocations", Page 212: The DEIS 

states BLM has designated all state highway 

routes as transportation corridors within the 

BHRP A. However, no administrative or 

management actions are identified for 

transportation corridors, as are provided for 

utilities and communication facilities. [We 

encourage BLM to identify such actions for 

transportation facilities within the BHRP. 

(Federal Highway Administration, Phoenix, AZ 

- Comment: #1426, letter #162)

Public Concern (LR-34): 

Respondents are elated to read that ―sufficient 

utility and transportation corridors are 

proposed in all alternatives to meet increasing 

energy demands for urban expansion in Central 

Arizona.‖

Response (LR-34): 

During scoping and throughout plan preparation, 

we contacted utility companies in the region to 

get input on their possible needs to meet future 

demand. The utility and corridors analyzed and 

reflected in the Proposed Alternative reflect 

those meetings and the input we have received 

since.

Public Comments (LR-34): 

Comment: We are glad to read in the report that 

"sufficient utility and transportation corridors 

are proposed in all Alternatives to meet 

increasing energy demands for urban expansion 

in Central Arizona". Most of the people in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area that value these BLM 

lands for their open space and recreation 

opportunities, place even greater value on their 

lights, air conditioners and automobiles, and 
Chapter 5

723

these corridors need to be readily available when 

needed for additional transmission line and 

pipeline facilities. (Individual, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #474, letter #204)

Public Concern (LR-35): 

Respondent opposes the widening of the Belmont 

Mountain Utility Corridor. 

Response (LR-35): 

The widths of this corridors allows for flexibility 

in the siting of specific utilities. The increased 

width also could accommodate new energy 

demands associated with urban expansion, yet it 

is possible that the entire corridor width would 

not be allocated to the construction of new 

utilities. Any new right-of-way actions would 

require site specific NEPA analysis to analyze 

effects on visual, natural, and cultural resources, 

as well as cumulative impacts from multiple 

utility.

Public Comments (LR-35): 

Comment: Further, the TAC opposes 

Alternative E regarding the widening of the 

Belmont Mountain Utility Corridor. This routing 

was sold to the community by Arizona Public 

Service as a safety and reliability leg for the 

energy needs of the Town of Surprise and metro 

Phoenix. The narrow corridor is adequate for 

that defined need. The right of way width shown 

in Alternative D should be maintained. 

(Tonopah Area Coalition, Tonopah, AZ -

Comment: #1119, letter #347)

Public Concern (LR-36): 

Commenters suggested that the statement found 

in alternative A ―Small utility distribution 

systems would continue to be developed on an 

as-needed basis throughout the planning area. 

These small distribution systems would include 

all uses such as electrical lines, gas and water 

pipelines, and access roads, These distribution 

systems would be authorized when consistent 

with environmental and land use 

considerations‖ be included in all alternatives. 

Commenters would also like BLM to add the 

statement to the values and plans of the 

surrounding communities.‖

Response (LR-36): 

The provision for continued issuance of these 

types of Land Use Authorizations is included in 

the Common to All section 2.7.1.2 under the 

Land Use Allocation called Land Use 

Authorizations.

Public Comments (LR-36): 

Comment: 6.Alternative A - Pages 44 & 45, 

2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty, Utility and 

Transportation Corridors and Communication 

Sites: ―All alternatives should include this 

statement from Alternative A: Small utility 

distribution systems would continue to be 

developed on an as-needed basis throughout the 

planning area. These small distribution systems 

would include all uses such as electrical lines, 

gas and water pipelines, and access roads. These 

distribution systems would be authorized when 

consistent with environmental and land use 

considerations. ̈ Please add the following to the 

above statement, as well as the values and plans 

of the surrounding communities. ̈ (Black 

Canyon Trail Coalition, In, Black Canyon City, 

AZ - Comment: #1272, letter #280)

Public Concern (LR-37): 

Respondents request that the final Plan identify 

Castle Hot Springs Road as a public roadway in 

which the BLM will grant additional rights-ofways to make the road a dedicated public rightof-way.

Response (LR-37): 

The action of dedicating a road as a ―public 

roadway‖ is an action of the local government, 

either county or city. BLM has issued rights-ofway to Maricopa and Yavapai Counties for 

Castle Hot Springs Road and can issue whatever 

rights-of-way are needed, if they are requested. 

However, it is not within BLMs jurisdiction to 

dedicate a public roadway.

Public Comments (LR-37): 

Comment: We recently met with the City of 

Peoria and have had several meeting with 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

representatives to determine the right-of-way 

status of, Castle Hot Springs Road. We own the 
Chapter 5

724

private land in 'the south V2 of Section 26, T7N, 

R1W and need to establish legal access to the 

property. The paved portion of Castle Hot 

Springs Road ends south of our site but the 

graded portion of Castle Hot Springs Road 

continues through and north of our site. Our 

consultant, Christine Sheehy, we met with Kris 

Luna and Angela Manuel of the City of Peoria 

regarding the right-of-way status of Castle Hot 

Springs Road. We are still in the process of 

reviewing legal descriptions and maps to 

determine the right-of-way status of Castle Hot 

Springs Road from our site to Highway 74. We 

may still need to obtain right-of-way from the 

BLM on some portions of Castle Hot Springs 

Road, which we hope BLM will entertain. We 

respectfully request that the final 

AFNM/Bradshaw-Harquahala Plan identify 

Castle Hot Springs Road as a public roadway in 

which the BLM will grant additional rights-ofway to make Castle Hot Springs Road a 

dedicated public right-of-way. (Peoria Holdings, 

LLC, Scottsdale, AZ - Comment: #1413, letter 

#390)

Public Concern (LR-38): 

Respondents felt no further development should 

occur in power line ROW that crosses the 

central eastern portions of Perry Mesa.

Response (LR-38): 

We are not considering a utility corridor along 

that ROW and we currently have no application 

for additional facilities within this right-of-way. 

No utility corridors will be designated across 

Perry Mesa or other areas of the national 

monument, as new utility lines could adversely 

affect scenic qualities and other monument 

values. However, the Proclamation respects 

valid existing rights, which include authorized 

rights-of-way for the operation and maintenance 

of existing utility lines. Maintenance activities 

will be monitored to ensure that they do not 

adversely affect monument values. 

Public Comments (LR-38): 

Comment: The siting of utility corridors can 

lead to loss or fragmentation of habitat, soil 

disturbance, encroachment of invasive plant 

species, reduction of wild and scenic character, 

and increased human disturbance, among other 

impacts to monument objects. In addition, the 

cumulative impacts of facility construction, 

increased roadway use, and regular maintenance 

activities can significantly impair monument 

objects. As a result of these impacts, no new 

rights-of-way should be granted within the 

monument's utility corridor. (Sierra Club 

Southwest Regional Office, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1822, letter #340)

Comment: No further development should 

occur in the powerline rights-of-way that cross 

the central and eastern portions of Perry Mesa. 

These rights-of-way impact important 

biological, cultural, recreational, and other 

resources both inside and outside the monument. 

(Friends of the Agua Fria National Monument, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2117, letter #339)

Public Concern (LR-39): 

Comments were received addressing the multipurpose utility corridor proposed in Alternative 

E. The respondents feel the corridor could be 

further improved to accommodate additional 

types of co-existing multiple uses. Additionally, 

consideration should be given to widening the 

existing multi-use corridor from the west 

boundary of the current proposed Phoenix 

Lateral pipeline centerline.

Response (LR-39):

We reviewed relevant new information 

regarding the Black Canyon Utility Corridor 

provided by the Transwestern Pipeline Company 

and have revised the corridor location 

accordingly. The new location overlaps the 

corridor analyzed in the Draft RMPs/Draft EIS 

and is in the same ecological types and same 

general area. Analysis conducted in our review 

indicates the location portrayed on Map 2-79 

and described in section 2.6.2.2.1.2 of our 

Proposed RMPs/Final EIS is not a substantial 

change from that analyzed in the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS and better achieves the reasons 

for designating utility corridors in resource 

management plans.
Chapter 5

725

Public Comments (LR-39):

Comment: We [Transwestern Pipeline 

Company] believe that the Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative E), recommended for the 

establishment of a multi-purpose utility and 

transportation corridor that extends one to two 

miles west of the centerline of I-17, could be 

further improved to accommodate additional 

types of coexisting multiple uses. The proposed 

corridor described in Alternative E may not 

effectively or efficiently accommodate the 

varied types of utilities that may utilize the 

multi-use corridor. (Transwestern Pipeline, 

Houston, TX - Comment: #1495, letter #383)

Comment: Consideration should be given to 

widening the existing multi-use corridor from 

the west boundary of the current proposed 

Phoenix Lateral pipeline centerline. This would 

allow for accommodation of future underground 

utilities and provide the opportunity to locate 

future facilities such that they can be installed, 

operated, accessed and maintained with 

increased safety and minimized environmental 

impact that may not be available if only the 

current proposed multi-use corridor is utilized. 

(Transwestern Pipeline, Houston, TX -

Comment: #1498, letter #383)

Public Concern (LR-40):

Respondent questions whether Map 2-13 is 

inconsistent with Map 2-20.

Response (LR-40):

Map 2-13 shows only the utility corridor within 

the Agua Fria National Monument, while Map 

2-20 show the corridors only within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. The maps 

are not inconsistent; however the omission of 

data not relevant to the particular maps may give 

that appearance. The versions of these maps in 

the Proposed RMP/ final EIS show all corridors 

within both planning areas so their relationships 

can be discerned.

Public Comments (LR-40):

Comment: 8. Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2.1.1., Page 

60: The discussion of utility and transportation 

corridors refers to Map 2-20, which shows the 

Black Canyon multi-use corridor as being 

restricted to the west side of 1-17. Is there an

inconsistency between Maps 2-13 and 2- 20?

(Federal Highway Administration, Phoenix, AZ 

- Comment: #1423, letter #162)

Public Concern (LR-41): 

Respondents request that BLM remove route 

building prohibitions in the Vulture Mountain 

ACEC and replace them with no highway 

transportation corridors allowed, while also 

creating a 1⁄2 mile buffer zone to protect nesting 

wildlife and to differentiate OHV transportation 

fromh highway transportation. 

Response (LR-41):

We believe that the management actions as 

listed for the Vulture Peak ACEC provide the 

best opportunities to achieve the desire future 

condition. Those management actions are 

integral for the protection and maintenance of 

the habitat features for the raptors within the 

area. Potential new routes are a site specific 

implementation level decision and will be 

evaluated and decided as proposals are received. 

Consideration of no highway corridors was 

evaluated in the No Action Alternative, and we 

believe the best opportunity for future traffic 

planning is in the establishment of transportation 

corridors relative to the potential CanaMex and 

Wickenburg bypass proposals.

Public Comments (LR-41):

Comment: Hassayampa Management Unit 

2.6.2.2.3.1 Special Area Designation page 187 

Vulture Mountain ACEC This are has in the past 

been looked at for a high speed paved 

transportation corridor for highway traffic. We 

request that you remove any route building 

prohibitions ( that do not affect ACEC purpose) 

and replace with NO Highway Transportation 

Corridors allowed. Create a 1⁄2 mile buffer zone 

are peaks to protect nesting wildlife. This needs 

to differentiate Recreation (OHV) transportation 

from Highway type Transportation. (Arizona 

Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1665, letter #261)
Chapter 5

726

5.4.5 SOIL, AIR, AND 

WATER RESOURCES

Public Concern (WS-1): 

Several comments were received suggesting 

BLM provide additional mitigation to vehicle 

routes in areas of highly erodible soils including 

additional closures or changing allocations or 

designations. Additionally, in AFNM, BLM 

should identify locations of highly erodible soils 

and adopt mitigation measures to avoid further 

impacts to impaired waters to reduce sediment 

load, especially in turbid streams.

Response (WS-1): 

Additional mitigation for OHV routes in areas of 

highly erodible soils will be addressed as 

mitigation actions within specific Travel 

Management Plans. Our inventoried routes will 

be compared with Natural Resource 

Conservation Service soils data to determine if 

routes are located in areas with moderate to 

severe soil erosion hazard. The evaluation for 

routes in PM10 non-attainment areas and routes 

with fugitive dust issues will be part of the route 

evaluation process.

Proposed mitigation actions (closure, seasonal 

restrictions, speed limits, change in use, 

surfacing, and surface treatments) will also be 

addressed as part of the adaptive management 

for Travel and Transportation Management. For 

example, if air quality issues reach unacceptable 

or noncompliant levels, then dirt or other nonsurfaced routes creating the air quality problem 

or noncompliance could be closed to travel until 

route conditions change or are corrected.

Please see text changes under 2.7.2.10 and 

2.7.3.8, mitigation discussions in section 4.25, 

and Appendix T.

Public Comments (WS-1): 

Comment: Incomplete sediment control 

measures. The methods of sediment control 

associated with the closure of 69 miles of roads 

in the planning areas as described in Section 

4.8.7: Alternative E could be improved. The 

roads are located in moderate to very severe 

potential soil erodibility areas. While the road 

closure will reduce soil disturbance, erosion, and 

compaction by OHV use, additional actions 

could further control soil erosion in these areas. 

The introduction of native vegetation to the 

closed roads would expedite the succession 

process and establish a community of rooted 

plants. Minimization of trampling by grazing 

livestock in the initial months after closure and 

planting would aid in the establishment of the 

plant community that collective decrease soil 

loss to erosion. (Individual, Champaign, IL -

Comment: #1896, letter #201)

Comment: The DEIS indicates that some road 

routes in the Monument that would be opened 

located in areas with high erodibility potentially 

(ranging up to very severe potential, p. 450). The 

DEIS does not indicate where these areas are 

located or whether all routes in high erodibility 

areas will be closed. Recommendation: In the 

FEIS, identify locations of high erodibility soils. 

If routes in these areas will be open, apply 

additional mitigation to reduce impacts from 

OHVs such as additional route closures, or 

changing land designations (from Front Country 

Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) to Back 

Country RMZ, for example). (U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA - Comment: #2178, letter #396)

Public Concern (WS-2): 

Commenter suggests BLM provide information 

in FEIS regarding where most OHV emissions 

occur and how the information was gathered. 

BLM should estimate PM10 emissions from OHV 

use if possible, and discuss how SRMAs will be 

managed to reduce air quality effects including 

fugitive dust. Management actions suggested 

include requiring permits or using gates, fences, 

and other barriers to exclude use on high 

pollution days.

Response (WS-2): 

The suggested actions (gates, fences, signs, and 

other barriers) will become part of the adaptive 
Chapter 5

727

management in the Travel Management and Air 

Quality sections of the plan. This measure will 

allow BLM to curtail fugitive dust and PM10

emissions during extreme air pollution forecasts. 

Arizona and Maricopa County air quality rules 

are being revised to address methods for 

attaining air quality standards within the current 

nonattainment areas. BLM activities within the 

nonattainment area will be modified to conform 

with state and county air quality rules. Upon 

completion of the Resource Management Plan, a 

subsequent Air Quality Compliance Plan, which 

will constitute an implementation level plan, and 

environmental analysis will be conducted to 

determine the alternative and appropriate means 

to comply with those rules.

Public Comments (WS-2): 

Comment: The DEIS states that on a 

countywide basis, OHVs generate much fugitive 

dust and tailpipe emissions. Most of these 

emissions occur in remote areas and are unlikely 

to contribute to any meaningful regional air 

quality impacts affecting nonattainment or 

sensitive downwind area (p.457). The basis for 

this conclusion is not clear. Because Phoenix 

may not make its 12/31/2006 attainment date for 

PM10 NAAQS, stricter measures may be 

warranted for the Phoenix area and it is possible 

that OHV use might be among the new sources 

regulated to control dust emissions. As such, 

more information should be provided in the 

FEIS to quantify estimated emissions where 

possible and justify conclusions of 

insignificance. Recommendation: Provide 

information in the FEIS regarding locations 

where most OHV emissions occur and how this 

information was gathered. Estimate PM10 

emissions form OHV use if possible, and discuss 

how SRMAs will be managed to reduce air 

quality effects including fugitive dust. Suggest 

controls could include the use of gates, fences, 

and other barriers to exclude use on high 

pollution days, or requiring permits to limit 

OHV use. (U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, San Francisco, CA - Comment: #2181, 

letter #396)

Public Concern (WS-3):

Commenter feels the plan needs to say that all 

construction activities associated with the RMP, 

including ongoing maintenance, permitted 

activities, etc., utilize dust control measures. 

The FEIS should reference Maricopa County’s 

dust control measures, some of which may apply 

even outside of the non-attainment area.

Response (WS-3):

Arizona and Maricopa County air quality rules 

are being revised to address methods for 

attaining air quality standards within the current 

nonattainment areas. BLM activities within the 

nonattainment area will be modified to conform 

to state and county air quality rules. Upon 

completion of the Resource Management Plan, a 

subsequent Air Quality Compliance Plan, which 

will constitute an implementation level plan and 

environmental analysis, will be conducted to 

determine the alternative and appropriate means 

to comply with those rules.

Public Comments (WS-3):

Comment: The DEIS states that utilities 

permitted in. the utility corridor would generate 

fugitive dust impacts and would implement dust 

control best management practices. EPA 

recommends all construction associated with the 

Resource Management Plan, including ongoing 

maintenance, permitted activities etc., utilize 

dust control measures. The FEIS should 

reference Maricopa County's dust control 

measures, some of which apply to all areas of 

the county, not just in nonattainment areas. (U. 

S. Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA - Comment: #2182, letter #396)

Public Concern (WS-4):

Several commenters feel a complete analysis is 

required to determine if the emissions associated 

with the Federal action (both construction and 

operational emissions) are subject to the 

requirements for a formal conformity 

determination under 40 CFR 93, subpart B. The 

―applicability‖ analysis involves quantification 

of emissions caused by a Federal action that are 

generated within non-attainment or maintenance 

areas, that are reasonably foreseeable, and that 

the Federal agency can predictably control and 
Chapter 5

728

will maintain control over due to a continuing 

program responsibility. A formal conformity 

determination is then required for all such 

emissions that exceed de minimis thresholds set 

forth in the rule.

Response (WS-4):

Recreational activities, road maintenance, 

prescribed burning and mining operations are 

among the emissions-generating activities that 

are reasonably foreseeable and over which the 

BLM may exercise control due to a continuing 

program responsibility. Recreational use of 

public lands within the planning areas includes 

horseback riding, hiking, camping, mineral 

mining, and OHV use. Of these uses, the 

greatest impact upon the Phoenix Metropolitan 

Area PM10 nonattainment area is expected to be 

from OHV use. 

The 2005 Periodic Emissions Inventory for PM10

for the Maricopa County, Arizona 

Nonattainment Area included an estimated 

annual emission of OHV fugitive dust at 2,159 

tons per year (Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department, May 2007). In order to quantify 

the contribution of OHV fugitive dust from 

public land use, the BLM plans to prepare an 

emissions inventory as part of developing an Air 

Quality General Conformity analysis and 

determination. The General Conformity 

analysis and determination will follow 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR 93, Determining 

Conformity of Federal Actions to State or 

Federal Implementation Plans. The Air Quality 

General Conformity analysis and determination 

is conducted at an implementation level and will 

comply with applicable County and State air 

quality rules, which are currently going through 

rule changes. Therefore, the conformity analysis 

and determination will be completed after the 

Record of Decision is signed, but before 

additional OHV activities are authorized. Upon 

signing the Record of Decision, no OHV or 

other activities that may contribute to or inhibit 

the County from reaching attainment will be 

authorized, except for those actions that may be 

typically excluded by regulation (such as at 40 

CFR 93.158) until the conformity determination 

process is complete. 

Public Comments (WS-4):

Comment: The General Conformity discussion 

in the DEIS, however, does not address any 

emissions-generating activities (other than those 

associated with land disposal), and the General 

Conformity rule does require an applicability 

determination by BLM for all emissions caused 

by the adoption and implementation of the RMP 

that are generated within nonattainment or 

maintenance areas, that are reasonably 

foreseeable, and that BLM can practicably 

control and will maintain control over due to a 

continuing program responsibility. A formal 

conformity determination consistent with the 

criteria set forth at 40 CFR 93.158 is required 

for any such emissions that exceed the 

applicable de minimis threshold. 

Recommendation: A complete analysis is 

required to determine if the emissions associated 

with the Federal action (both construction. and 

operational emissions) are subject to the 

requirements for a formal conformity 

determination under the General Conformity 

rule codified at 40 CFR 93, subpart B. The 

"applicability" ana1ysis involves quantification 

of emissions caused by a Federal action that are 

generated within nonattainment or maintenance 

areas, that are reasonably foreseeable, and that 

the Federal agency can practicably control and 

will maintain control over due to a continuing 

program responsibility. A formal conformity 

determination is then required for all such 

emissions that exceed de minimis thresholds set 

forth in the rule. Emissions-generating activities 

covered by the rule would presumably include, 

but not be limited to, construction of new 

facilities, OHV use, and prescribed burning 

caused by implementation of the RMP. In this 

instance, the applicable pollutants and 

geographic areas include CO emissions 

generated within the CO "maintenance" area, 

VOC and NOx emissions generated Within the 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area, and PM-10 

emissions generated within the PM-10 

nonattainment area. (U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA -

Comment: #2184, letter #396)

Comment: The general conformity 

determination should include the correct de 

minimis levels. The applicable de minimis 
Chapter 5

729

thresholds are 100 tons per year for CO, 100 

tons per year for 8-hour ozone precursors (VOC 

or NOx), and 70 tons per year for PM-10. Such 

an applicability determination (and conformity 

determination if necessary based on the 

applicability determination) must be completed 

for at least the alternative that BLM intends to 

select prior to BLM's action on the RMP. If the 

determination is completed before the FEIS is 

published, it should be included as an appendix 

to the FEIS. (U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, San Francisco, CA - Comment: #2185, 

letter #396)

Public Concern (WS-5): 

Several comments were received concerning the 

47 miles of riparian corridor in the Agua Fria 

National Monument. Commenters recommended 

that the BLM should take various actions to 

protect riparian segments that are not in proper 

functioning condition (PFC). Additionally, they 

recommend discussion of additional protections 

for Non-PFC segments and modifying the 

Preferred Alternative to include mitigations, 

such as removal of livestock or restrictions on 

OHV use in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS), BLM should Map or provide 

descriptive information regarding the location 

of riparian segments in the planning area that 

are not in proper functioning condition (PFC). 

Additionally, they recommend discussion of 

additional protections for Non-PFC segments 

and modifying the Preferred Alternative to 

include mitigations, such as removal of livestock 

or restrictions on OHV use.

Response (WS-5): 

The management objectives and prescriptions in 

this document are designed to achieve the 

Arizona Land Health Standards which will 

protect and restore riparian conditions. The 

condition of all riparian areas as determined by 

monitoring is presented in Appendix Q1 and Q2.

Public Comments (WS-5): 

Comment: These (Non-PFC) segments (in 

Appendix Q1/Q2) should receive higher 

protections from livestock grazing, OHV use, 

road impacts, and mining impacts. 

Recommendation: Discuss additional protections 

for these areas and modify the preferred 

alternative to include these mitigations. For 

example, if livestock are a cause of preventing 

attainment of PFC, year-round restrictions on 

grazing in these riparian areas should be 

implemented; if off-highway vehicle (OHV) use 

is implicated, stricter land designations should 

be associated with those areas, etc. (U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA - Comment: #2170, letter #396)

Comment: I agree that riparian areas must be 

protected and that would require reduction in 

livestock grazing and OHV use. The high fecal 

coliform and turbidity levels found in the surface 

waters are probably caused by these uses of our 

public lands. The misuses by these entities also 

endanger the desert tortoise. (Individual, Mesa, 

AZ - Comment: #1156, letter #376)

Public Concern (WS-6): 

Commenter is concerned about changes to 

stream banks.

Response (WS-6): 

Bank alteration measurement includes all 

streambanks that are altered at the time of 

measurement. The allowable 25% bank 

alteration currently only applies to the five

streams occupied by Gila chub, Gila topminnow 

and desert pupfish. Three of those 5 streams are 

inaccessible to both livestock and vehicles. The 

25% threshold was based on the methods 

described in the Biological Assessment and 

agreed upon in consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. This threshold is included 

as a Term and Condition in the Biological 

Opinion for Silver Creek and Indian Creek [02-

21-03-F-0409-R1, November 2, 2006]. 

Public Comments (WS-6):

Comment: Concerning Section 2.7.1.4 Page 

217, column 1 3rd paragraph, commenter stated,

―Stream bank alteration...would be limited to 25 

percent annually Comment This could result in 

nearly all of the stream banks being altered in 

just a few years.‖ (The State of Az Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1377, letter #401)
Chapter 5

730

Public Concern (WS-7): 

Respondenst strongly support management that 

prohibits surface water diversions and 

groundwater pumping that removes water from 

the monument or adversely affects values, but 

would also like to add ―Water diversions and 

groundwater pumping that removes water 

should not adversely affect the surrounding 

communities.‖

Response (WS-7): 

The Monument Proclamation established a 

Federal reserved water right which mandates 

BLM to secure legal entitlement to a quantity of 

water sufficient to protect the water-dependant 

values within the monument. The referenced 

management action is intended to protect that 

water right. BLM has no authority to limit water 

use that might ―adversely affect the surrounding 

communities‖ outside of the National Monument 

or on other non-public lands and cannot add that 

statement to our Resource Management Plan. 

Authority for allocation and adjudication of 

water use rests with the Arizona Department of 

Water Resources. However, when BLM receives 

a request to drill a well or develop water on or 

across the public lands, it is required by the 

NEPA process to address all impacts associated 

with authorizing an action, including any 

impacts to water use on surrounding areas; and 

any decision made by BLM is a protestable 

action.

Public Comments (WS-7): 

Comment: 10.Public comment and concern not 

addressed in any alternative but needs to include 

in all applicable management actions: As stated 

in the Agua Fria section of these comments, 

please add the statement that, ―water diversions 

and groundwater pumping that removes water 

should not adversely affect the surrounding 

communities.‖ (Individual, Black Canyon City, 

AZ - Comment: #1339, letter #282)

Comment: Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives - Page 233. 2.7.2.4 Soil, Air, and 

Water resources. -We absolutely support this 

Management Action to prohibit surface water 

diversions and groundwater pumping that 

removes water from the Monument or adversely 

affects the Monument's values. -Please change 

the statement, "water diversions and 

groundwater pumping that removes water from 

the Monument and adversely affects the 

Monuments values " to also include, "and should 

not adversely affect the surrounding 

communities". (New River/Desert Hills 

Community Association, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1528, letter #393)

Public Concern (WS-8): 

Commenters suggest that the FEIS should 

provide information about all CWA Section 

303(d) impaired waters and efforts to develop 

Total Maximum Daily Loads in the project area, 

as well as discuss existing restoration and 

enhancement efforts for those waters and how 

the project will coordinate with these efforts. 

Response (WS-8): 

The only 303(d) water in the Agua Fria 

Watershed is Turkey Creek on the Prescott 

National Forest. The only 303(d) water on 

BLM-managed lands in the planning areas is 

French Gulch, a tributary to the Hassayampa 

River. The causes of non-attainment are historic 

mining related and would not be affected by 

decisions in this document. Nevertheless, we 

will continue to work with the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources, other agencies 

and partners to monitor water quality in selected 

streams and to avoid actions that could 

contribute to violations of water quality 

standards. 

Public Comments (WS-8): 

Comment: The Clean Water Act (CWA) 

requires states to develop a list of water 

segments which do not or are not expected to 

meet applicable water quality standards, 

establish a priority ranking of those segments, 

and develop action plans called Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) to improve water quality. 

The DEIS states that surface water quality in the 

planning area has been determined by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) in most cases to be impaired, 

containing pollutants above EPA standards, and 

that turbidity, arsenic, and fecal coliforms are 
Chapter 5

731

the most common pollutants contributing to 

these impaired streams (p. s-xiii). The DEIS also 

states that prescriptions for soil, air, and water 

resources would protect water quality to meet 

Federal and State standards for designated uses 

(p. 475). The DEIS does not discuss CWA 

303(d) listing in the project areas, whether 

TMDLs have been established for those water 

bodies, how the proposed project will coordinate 

with existing protection efforts, and what impact 

the proposed project might have on meeting 

CWA Section 303 goals. Recommendation: The 

FEIS should provide information about all CWA 

Section 303(d) impaired waters and efforts to 

develop TMDLs in the project area, existing 

restoration and enhancement efforts for those 

waters and how the project will coordinate with 

these efforts. (U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, San Francisco, CA - Comment: #2172, 

letter #396)

Public Concern (WS-9): 

Respondent feels that Browns Canyon should 

not qualify as a riparian area and should be 

exempted under Standard 2 as outlined under 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines.

Response (WS-9): 

Browns Canyon meets the Bureau definition of 

riparian contained in Technical Reference 1737-

9 (1993). Neither the presence of the silted in 

dam nor the seasonal nature of the stream 

preclude its classification as riparian. The 

presence of vegetation dependent upon free 

water in the soil is evident.

Public Comments (WS-9):

Comment: We do not see how Browns Canyon 

qualifies as a riparian. This riparian area is 

artificially creates as a result of a man made 

dam, under Section 4 permit #A3-4-339 and 

State water claims #38-18063. The dam is 6' 

high and 70' long and the water was stated as 

seasonal. We feel this is exempted under 

Standard 2 as outlined under Arizona Standards 

for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Administration. (Individual, Kingman, 

AZ - Comment: #1176, letter #352)

Public Concern (WS-10): 

Respondent is concerned about the mechanized 

water development that is proposed under 

Alternatives A and E. The ADEQ and ADWR 

groundwater data bases failed to locate wells 

within a 5 mile radius of T 91/2, R 3E, S 29.

Response (WS-10): 

Site-specific planning, evaluation, and 

implementation of potential management actions 

are beyond the scope of this RMP and are 

addressed through the use of individual, sitespecific plans. This comment will be forwarded 

for use in the allotment planning for the 

individual grazing allotment referenced.

Public Comments (WS-10):

Comment: Under Alternative E, grazing would 

continue in the uplands. Considering the current 

drought conditions, it is reasonable to presume 

that holders of grazing allotments will want to 

add tanks and deepen wells that supply them or 

supply the 10,000 gallon tanks. A search of the 

ADEQ and ADWR groundwater data bases 

failed to locate wells with a 5 miles radius of T 

91/2, R 3E, S 29, the afore mentioned Joes Hill 

Quadrangle. There has been a referral to depth to 

water in wells at ranches in the Agua Fria River 

Corridor but no data for the upland wells. Water 

retention is mentioned through out the 

AGNM/Bradshaw Management Plan. 

Accomplishment of that seems to be 

transportation route planning and livestock 

management on various classes of soils. 

Juggling these considerations using Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

for Grazing Administration, Standard One: 

Upland Sites with regard to the Alternatives, 

Volume 1, page 209; Alternatives A and E 

would allow for mechanized water development.

(Sonoran Audubon Society - Comment: #1246, 

letter #287)

Public Concern (WS-11): 

Numerous comments were received concerning 

BLM’s role in protecting the quality and supply 

of water resources in the monument, as water is 

vital to the well being of many monument 

objects. Commenters feel BLM should 

proactively protect water resources and riparian 
Chapter 5

732

areas, as they are crucial to sustainability in the 

desert. Further, it is suggested that the Bureau 

maintain close coordination with the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources as we develop 

strategies to implement water and water right 

related measures.

Response (WS-11):

The Agua Fria National Monument

Proclamation created a federal reserved water 

right upon establishment of the Monument. The 

provisions of section 2.7.2.3 are designed to 

identify, quantify and notify the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources of that reserved 

water right.

Public Comments (WS-11):

Comment: Riparian ecosystems in the 

southwest are some of the most endangered 

ecosystems in our country. The BLM should do 

everything possible to protect this habitat from 

any further destruction, (Individual, Prescott, AZ 

- Comment: #818, letter #157)

Comment: The Arizona Department of Water 

Resources has reviewed the "Agua Fria National 

Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Draft 

Resource Management Plan and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement" and we 

submit the following comments. Pursuant to 

statute: 'the director [Department of Water 

Resources] has general control and supervision 

of surface water, its appropriation and 

distribution and of groundwater to the extent 

provided by this title, except distribution of 

water reserved to special officers appointed by 

courts under existing judgments or decrees' -

ARS 45-103 As described in the subject draft 

RMP/EIS, the Bureau would, under all action 

alternatives: 'Identify, quantify and secure legal 

entitlement to all existing water sources on the 

public lands and seek to acquire water rights, 

when possible, to ensure water availability to 

meet multiple-resource needs. Assert Federal 

reserved water rights, where suitable, in Agua 

Fria National Monument and five wilderness 

areas to secure water for the purpose of the 

reservations'. -RMPs/EIS at 214 I suggest that 

the Bureau maintain close coordination with the 

Department as it develops strategies to 

implement water and water right related 

measures. (ADWR - Comment: #846, letter 

#296) 

5.4.6 BIOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Public Concern (TE-1): 

Respondents request protection of habitat for 

sensitive or threatened animals and plants, 

creation of wildlife corridors, and 

acknowledgement of long-term sustainable uses 

of wildlife populations.

Response (TE-1): 

The BLM believes these concerns are addressed 

in the Proposed Plan.

Public Comments (TE-1): 

Comment: Pronghorn, desert tortoise, and other 

creatures are suffering due to encroaching 

human impacts; I want the BLM to protect the 

habitat of sensitive or threatened animals and 

plants. (Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: 

#838, letter #310)

Comment: Ideally, you will work to connect 

these areas with others where ever possible and 

create designated wilderness wildlife corridors 

that are true "wells of nature" and reflect the 

current science associated with the original 

purpose of legislation that created the park 

service and made America a world leader in 

progressive thinking. (Individual, Laveen, AZ -

Comment: #795, letter #305)

Public Concern (TE-2): 

Respondent is concerned that Section 4.11.10 

does not discuss impacts to biological resources 

from mining for landscape boulders.

Response (TE-2):

The impacts to biological resources from

minerals management including mineral 

material sales are evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. As stated in section 4.11.10, impacts 

would be mitigated and avoided to the extent 

allowable by regulation. Due to mitigation, 
Chapter 5

733

BLM contributions to cumulative impacts are 

expected to be negligible. 

Public Comments (TE-2):

Comment: Concerning Section 4.11.10 Page 

Pages 498 to 499, commenter stated, ―Does not 

discuss impacts to Biological resources from 

mining for landscape boulders.‖ (The State of 

Az Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1398, letter #401)

Public Concern (TE-3): 

Commenter believes the Biological Resources 

section should contain more emphasis on 

wildlife in general. At a minimum, this section 

should include game species and the State's 

Special Status Species.

Response (TE-3): 

The Biological Resources and Wildlife and 

Fisheries sections of the Executive Summary 

have been rewritten to more closely reflect the 

plan contents. Management of game species and 

the state‘s special status species are addressed in 

detail in Section 2.7.1.4.

Public Comments (TE-3):

Comment: Concerning Executive Summary 

Page s-xiii, Biological Resources, commenter 

stated, ―The most sensitive wildlife species... 

Comment The Biological Resources section 

should contain more emphasis on wildlife in 

general. At a minimum this section should 

include game species and the State's Special 

Status Species.‖ (The State of Az Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1357, 

letter #401)

Public Concern (TE-4): 

Commenter wants the final RMP to maintain:

Reasonable vehicle based motorized access 

on existing roads and trails

A continuation of dispersed vehicle based 

undeveloped camping without designated 

sites

No obstacles presented to active wildlife 

management and conservation activities

Response (TE-4): 

The Phoenix District believes the Proposed Plan 

meets the commenter‘s expressed desires very 

well. Wildlife management and conservation 

activities will continue to be conducted in ways 

that meet the BLM and AGFD wildlife 

management objectives.

Public Comments (TE-4): 

Comment: For the record we (ADBSS) would 

hope that the final RMP would maintain 1) 

reasonable vehicle based motorized recreational 

access on 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.

(Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, 

AZ - Comment: #2148, letter #342)

Public Concern (TE-5): 

Commenters want the Preferred Alternative to 

be reasonable, consistent with a ―conservation‖ 

approach and reflect the ―mutual agreement‖ of 

AGFD.

Response (TE-5):

We believe the Preferred Alternative is 

reasonable and complies with laws, Presidential 

Proclamation, and regulations that govern 

management of public lands, especially the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act. We 

will continue to work very closely with the 

AGFD. The Statewide Memorandum of 

Understanding between BLM and AGFD should 

help to further define our working relationships.

Public Comments (TE-5):

Comment: The preferred alternative must be 

reasonable, consistent with a conservation 

approach, and reflect the mutual agreement of 

the AGFD (Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club, 

Inc, Yuma, AZ - Comment: #1067, letter #163)

Public Concern (TE-6): 

Respondents want AGFD to manage wildlife, 

including wildlife dependent recreation, and 

BLM and AGFD should continue to conduct 

cooperative wildlife management.
Chapter 5

734

Response (TE-6): 

The separation of responsibilities between BLM 

and Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AGFD) is usually along the lines of BLM 

managing wildlife habitat and the AGFD 

managing wildlife populations. As for ―wildlife 

dependent recreation,‖ FLPMA gives BLM 

authority to manage recreation on BLMmanaged lands. In the case of hunting and 

fishing, the AGFD issues licenses for the take of 

game, but BLM is responsible for managing the 

―recreation‖ part of the activity. In other words, 

FLPMA gives BLM the authority to determine 

where people can camp, where they can drive, 

what modes of travel might be allowed, place 

limits on seasons people might be allowed into 

an area, limits on group sizes, determination of

areas for day use only, or impose other 

management limitations or restrictions to meet 

land use goals for an area. The fact the 

recreation activity is wildlife based does not 

exempt it from BLM‘s responsibilities under 

FLPMA.

The separation of wildlife management 

responsibilities between BLM and AGFD make 

it imperative that BLM and AGFD work 

together cooperatively to achieve the optimum 

benefit for wildlife. Due to our different 

missions, that is not always easy or straight 

forward. The multiple-use mission given BLM 

by FLPMA doesn‘t allow BLM to always place 

wildlife management above other public land 

uses. Recreation is currently an important use of 

public lands and one that is in high demand in 

Central Arizona. Wildlife management 

activities are not always compatible with 

recreation use or management. BLM will 

continue to work closely with AGFD to find the 

best solutions for both meeting our multiple use 

mandate and optimizing conditions for wildlife. 

The Statewide Memorandum of Understanding 

between BLM and the AGFD is an important 

tool in defining that working relationship.

Public Comments (TE-6): 

Comment: BLM should manage the land, the 

Game and Fish Department should manage 

wildlife, wildlife dependent outdoor recreation 

including hunting. Cooperative wildlife 

management activities should continue between 

the Department and the Bureau of Land 

Management. (Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club 

- Comment: #2051, letter #150)

Comment: Elements the Arizona Antelope 

Foundation supports in the management of 

AFNM include: Coordinate with AGFD on 

hunting and fishing policies to ensure public 

safety, especially if there are areas of increased 

visitor use. (The Arizona Antelope Foundation, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #2004, letter #273)

Public Concern (TE-7): 

Respondents are concerned that impacts to 

wildlife water developments or other activities 

for wildlife management may be impacted by 

various land allocations, such as TMAs, RMZs, 

and ACECs. They would like to see an accurate 

analysis of these impacts and clarify language to 

indicate these actions will not be impeded.

Response (TE-7):

Section 2.7.1.4 describes a number of wildlife 

management activities that could be 

implemented as well as management common to 

all areas that emphasizes the role of wildlife 

management. However, the list in Section 

2.7.1.4 are not intended to be exhaustive and 

additional Arizona Game and Fish Department 

proposed activities would be addressed in the 

future as appropriate. In any case, all proposals 

that might have an impact to natural or physical 

resources will require future site-specific 

environmental analysis appropriate to the 

activity and area proposed.

Public Comments (TE-7):

Comment: We (ADBSS) are particularly 

concerned with realizing the impacts to wildlife 

water developments within the various TMA's 

and RMZ's and would like to see an accurate 

analysis provided in the final RMP. (Arizona 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ -

Comment: #2147, letter #342)

Comment: The DRMP should more clearly 

identify that special species ACEC's and various 

special species management and administrative 
Chapter 5

735

actions do no inhibit or impede activities 

benefiting other wildlife species. (Arizona 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ -

Comment: #2144, letter #342)

Public Concern (TE-8): 

Commenters oppose predator control as an 

issue in the RMPs and feel analysis was not 

adequate because it did not reference the 1999 

predator environmental assessment (completed 

by Animal Plant and Health Inspection 

Service(APHIS)). They note that the document 

doesn’t recognize the legal authorities of 

wildlife services for predator control, at either 

the Federal or State levels, and request that the 

discussion be modified as it is currently in 

violation of a 1995 MOU between BLM and 

APHIS. Additionally, the document used an old 

name and failed to invite APHIS Wildlife 

Services as a Cooperating Agency.

Response (TE-8): 

Predator control was not an issue in the 

RMPs/EIS. It was mentioned only in the No 

Action Alternative, (Alternative A) which was 

made up of decisions from previous, (often 

obsolete) decision documents. This was not 

carried forward into either the Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative E) or in the Common to 

All Sections, so it will be vacated in the final 

version of our plan. 

Additionally, the old name was used because the 

referenced decision came directly from a 

decision document written before the name 

change and APHIS Wildlife Services was not 

invited as a Cooperating Agency because 

predator control was not an issue, and because 

inclusion of it in the RMPs/EIS would violate 

the 1995 MOU between our agencies. The 

request to be a Cooperating Agency has been 

forwarded to the BLM Arizona State Office for 

formal consideration.

Alternative A does not reference either the MOU 

or EA mentioned because the decisions in 

Alternative A predate both the MOU and the 

EA. However, the language you suggest 

describes a management interrelationship 

between BLM and APHIS-WS that is 

appropriate to include in the document section 

2.13 – Interrelationships. That section was 

modified to include the language you suggested.

Public Comments (TE-8): 

Comment: The BLM specifically identifies the 

need to "Modify existing agreements with the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) animal damage control, specifically 

targeting individual predators rather than 

predator populations." The inclusion of predator 

management in the draft EIS specifically in 

relation to WS is in violation of the 1995 

Memorandum of Understanding between the 

BLM and WS. In the MOU, it was agreed upon 

that WS would complete the NEPA documents 

and decision records on activities related to 

predator control primarily for livestock 

protection on BLM lands. WS completed an 

environmental assessment (EA) for predator 

work on public lands in 1999. The BLM would 

complete NEPA compliance for nonpredator 

wildlife damage management activities initiated 

by BLM to protect natural resources and 

facilities. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1501, letter #271)

Comment: I am requesting that the discussion to 

modify "Animal Damage Control" documents be

removed as an issue for consideration or be 

treated as common to all alternatives with the 

following language: "Animal Damage Control 

will be conducted by APHIS- WS consistent 

with the national Memorandum of 

Understanding between BLM and APHIS-WS. 

Planning of wildlife damage management will 

include consideration of BLM resources, 

including wilderness and roadless areas. APHISWS is responsible for NEPA compliance on 

wildlife damage management projects they 

conduct. Wildlife damage management may also 

be conducted by the State of Arizona or their 

designee, consistent with the creation of the 

national monuments." (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1505, 

letter #271)

Public Concern (TE-9): 

Commenter recommends making changes to the 

Preferred Alternative to provide additional 
Chapter 5

736

protections for resources, including riparian 

areas, air quality, and wildlife.

Response (TE-9):

We believe the plan addresses your concerns.

Public Comments (TE-9):

Comment: Based on our review, we have rated 

the DEIS as Environmental Concerns -

Insufficient Information (EC-2) (see enclosed 

"Summary of Rating Definitions"). EPA is 

concerned with the health of riparian resources 

in the planning area, including water quality and 

soils, and with impacts to air quality from OHV

use in areas that currently do not meet air quality 

standards for particulate matter less than 10 

microns (PM10). We are also concerned that the 

resource management plan predicts resource 

conditions to deteriorate somewhat in the long 

term as recreation continues to increase in the 

planning area. While land protections and 

recreation management actions will help reduce 

impacts, the cumulative impacts from growth in 

the Phoenix area might offset the benefits form 

these management actions. Because of these 

traits, EPA recommends several changes to the 

Preferred Alternative to provide additional 

protections for resources, including riparian 

areas, air quality and wildlife. (U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA - Comment: #2167, letter #396)

Public Concern (TE-10): 

Respondents feel that Chapter 3 should include 

detailed descriptions of the habitat requirements 

for each special status species, delineate this 

habitat in the planning area, and discuss current 

population status and trends, especially as the 

habitat conditions and population trends may be 

affected by actions in the planning area. The EIS 

should describe desired future conditions 

specific to each special status species’ habitat 

requirements, and actions for achieving these. 

Wildlife species of concern should include not 

just threatened and endangered species and 

special concern species, but also all monument 

objects. 

Response (TE-10): 

The Resource Management Plans are a 

landscape-level plan, and analysis is conducted

at a landscape level. At that level it is often 

difficult or impossible to derive specific 

quantified impacts. Actions required to 

implement the plan would receive more detailed 

scrutiny and environmental analysis that could 

more specifically address possible affects to 

biological resources and specific wildlife 

populations.

An additional table describing special status 

species occurrence and habitat use in the 

planning areas has been added as Appendix U. 

Riparian habitat condition data is presented in 

Appendix Q1 and Q2.

Analysis in Chapter 4 has been expanded to 

describe how various types of activities can 

impact biological resources relative to the 

proposed action.

Public Comments (TE-10): 

Comment: The Draft RMP describes a number 

of actions that impact special status species in 

the planning area in Chapter 4, including roads, 

livestock grazing, habitat fragmentation and 

disturbance, vegetation treatments, and 

recreation. The fact that these actions would 

occur under all alternatives requires a rigorous 

environmental analysis of effects to special 

status species in the EIS. The draft RMP/EIS 

should provide detailed information about 

habitat requirements, baseline information on 

current habitat conditions, and the desired future 

conditions for all special status species. The 

effects analysis in the DEIS is inadequate, 

providing in many cases only generalities and 

assumptions, rather than clear directions and 

baseline data. Habitat requirements: Chapter 3: 

Affected Environment should include detailed 

descriptions of the habitat requirements for each 

species, delineate this habitat in the planning 

areas, and discuss current population status and 

trends, especially as the habitat conditions and 

population trends may be affected by actions in 

the planning area. While some general 

information is provided for some species, it is 

completely lacking for others. For example, the 

only information provided for game species is a 

list of whether the species is present, including 
Chapter 5

737

for species that are also Monument Objects (e.g. 

pronghorn, javelina, mule deer, and mountain 

lions) (3.5.3) RMP at 397. There is no 

information provided about habitat or species 

trends, except for a map of bighorn sheep habitat 

(Map 3-10) and a general statement that "recent 

drought conditions have generally affected large 

game population trends." (3.5.3) RMP at 398. 

There is little to no discussion of current 

conditions for special status species, except 

general statements about whether a species is 

likely to be present, and what general threats it 

possess (3.5.5) RMP at 398 to 402. 

Significantly, there is no information presented 

at all for several species that are monument 

objects, including the lowland leopard frog, the 

Mexican garter snake, and the common black 

hawk. As mentioned previously, in order to 

comply with the Monument Proclamation, the 

BLM must be able to demonstrate that it is 

prioritizing protection of these species. When 

there is no information presented on the states or 

trends of these species, it is impossible to 

evaluate the potential impacts of management 

activities on their future population status, and 

therefore the impact assessment is inherently 

flawed and inadequate. Desired future 

conditions: While we support the statements 

listed under Desired Future Conditions for 

special status species [(2.7.1.4) RMP at 214 to 

220], they do not constitute an analysis or a plan. 

Instead, they are broad statements, mostly 

communicating the agencies' intention to 

comply with the Endangered Species Act and 

other regulations pertaining to special status 

species management. The EIS should describe 

desired future conditions specific to each special 

status species' habitat requirements, and actions 

for achieving these. In addition, the same 

comments apply as above. The BLM should 

include desired future conditions for all 

Monument Objects. Conclusion: While the draft 

RMP does contain numerous lists of species, and 

references applicable laws, plans, and guidance, 

this does not constitute an analysis, even at the 

programmatic level. The EIS should provide a 

clear management vision that is consistent with 

the requirements of the Endangered Species Act 

to protect habitat and provide for the recovery of 

all special status species and Monument Objects. 

This vision must include an analysis of habitat 

requirements, baseline information regarding 

current conditions, and desired future conditions 

for each species. The BLM and NPS should seek 

to go beyond maintenance of the status quo with 

a plan that will ensure the health, recovery, 

increase, and long-term survival of the plant and 

wildlife populations that inhabit the landscape 

currently and those that may in the future if 

conditions are right. Recommendation: BLM 

must present data on the status, trends, and 

potential future trends of all wildlife species of 

concern in Chapter 3 and 4. Wildlife species of 

concern should include not just threatened and 

endangered species and special concern species, 

but also all Monument Objects. In particular, 

there is currently no information of several 

Monument Objects, including the lowland 

leopard frog, the Mexican garter snake, and the 

common black hawk. The Final RMP must 

include a thorough analysis of the current and 

projected status of species, and provide clear and 

consistent management goals to help species 

recover. BLM must provide this information if it 

is to complete its requirements under NEPA to 

provide an analysis of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2273, letter #343)

Public Concern (TE-11): 

Respondents suggest designating the Upper 

Agua Fria Rive Basin WHA to improve 

pronghorn and mule deer movement, and 

provide thousands of acres of Category I desert 

tortoise habitat. They urge conservative grazing 

practices in grassland habitats to assure 

sufficient forage for pronghorn and standing 

cover for both fawn hiding cover and nesting 

grasslands birds. Commenters are also 

concerned that seasonal access limitations and 

Special Recreation Uses could impede access 

for volunteer work, scientific research, site 

monitoring, and interpretive development. 

Response (TE-11): 

The management contained in Common to All 

Alternatives is adequate to protect the wildlife 

habitat in the Upper Agua Fria River Basin area. 

The area is not suitable for desert tortoise as it is 
Chapter 5

738

higher than the known elevation range for this 

species. 

We will continue to coordinate with the Arizona 

Game & Fish Department, the Tonto and 

Prescott National Forests, and other agencies in 

planning and implementing actions to protect 

pronghorn habitat and populations in the 

national monument and other grasslands in the 

nearby Upper Agua Fria River Basin area.

Public Comments (TE-11): 

Comment: EPA recommends the following 

changes to the preferred alternative for the 

protection of wildlife: Designate the Upper 

Agua Fria River Basin WHA to improve 

pronghorn and mule deer movement, and 

provide thousands of acres of Category I desert 

tortoise habitat (p. 308). (U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA -

Comment: #2196, letter #396)

Comment: 2.6.1.3 Biological Resources We 

support the recommended designation of a 

Pronghorn Antelope Wildlife Habitat Area 

(WHA) Designation of identified pronghorn 

antelope habitat in AFNM. The proposed 

Pronghorn Antelope Fawning Habitat (WHA) 

would be the area of focus for grasslands birds 

and a recommendation that the Sonoran 

Audubon Society has developed to expand the 

Important Bird Area to include this habitat. 

Grasslands dependent bird species have been 

documented nesting on the AFNM in the 

grasslands, including the Cassin's Sparrow, 

which is documented in the survey block on the 

AFNM for the Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas 

(Corman and Gervaise-Wise.2005.University of 

New Mexico Press) and was confirmed in the 

summer of 2005 on Perry Mesa by the Sonoran 

Audubon Society. We urge conservative grazing 

practices in these habitats to assure sufficient 

forage for pronghorn and standing cover for both 

fawn hiding cover and nesting grasslands birds, 

particularly in the spring and during pronghorn 

fawning in late spring and early summer.

(Audubon Arizona, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1232, letter #279)

Comment: The herd of pronghorn in the 

Monument is separated from other populations 

as a result of fragmented habitat due to Interstate 

17. The management of the grasslands on the 

mesas for the benefit of this population is 

imperative. SAS is the steward for this grassland 

IBA. The designation of a pronghorn antelope 

management area on Perry Mesa would be 

useful to the IBA expansion plans into the 

grasslands. The desire is to establish an area 

search for upland bird populations in the 

grasslands proximate to Joe's Hill. That 

coincides with identified antelope fawning areas. 

The proposed Pronghorn Antelope Fawning 

Habitat (WHA) would be the area of focus for 

SAS grasslands birds. The proposed seasonal 

access limitations could impede accomplishment 

of that objective without more extensive 

coordination with the BLM for scheduled visits. 

Also a concern that Special Recreation Uses are 

all that will be allowed during the spring 

summer raises the question about access for 

Sonoran Audubon to do the volunteer work, ref. 

page 506, Alternatives C, D and E, "Limiting 

vehicle routes in pronghorn corridors might 

restrict access to cultural resources, which would 

protect sites from human intrusions, but would 

limit opportunities for scientific research, site 

monitoring, and interpretive development". This 

problem is common to many volunteer groups 

and in wilderness areas. (Sonoran Audubon 

Society - Comment: #1243, letter #287)

Comment: Elements the Arizona Antelope 

Foundation supports in the management of 

AFNM include: Pronghorn Antelope Wildlife 

Habitat Area (WHA) -Designation of identified 

pronghorn antelope habitat in AFNM. (The 

Arizona Antelope Foundation, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #2005, letter #273)

Public Concern (TE-12): 

Commenter feels BLM should propose solutions 

for vegetation communities that are below ideal 

conditions, and should impose use restrictions in 

these areas.

Response (TE-12): 

The plan includes the land health standards for 

watershed and riparian function as well as 
Chapter 5

739

desired plant community. It also describes 

desired future conditions for vegetation which 

we believe are appropriate and achievable.

Public Comments (TE-12): 

Comment: The BLM should propose solutions 

for vegetation communities that are below ideal 

conditions, and should impose use restrictions in 

these areas. (Center for Biological Diversity, 

Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1569, letter #338)

Public Concern (TE-13): 

Respondents feel non-native species should not 

be used under any circumstance within the 

planning area and that BLM should use native 

species when restoring or rehabilitating 

rangelands.

Response (TE-13): 

As stated in 2.7.1.4, the use and perpetuation of 

native species would be emphasized when 

restoring or rehabilitating rangelands. We feel 

the conditions under which non-native species 

would be considered adequately address the 

associated risks.

Public Comments (TE-13): 

Comment: Non-native species should [NOT] be 

used under any circumstance within the planning 

area. The state of Arizona has a long history of 

using non-native species for management 

reasons, only to have those species escape and 

become noxious invaders of our wildlands. 

Restoration and rehabilitation cannot be

achieved using non-native species and the use of 

native species should be mandated in the plan. 

The use of non-native perennial species and 

grasses risks the displacement of native species 

of the same vegetation type. Only locallygenotypic native plant species should be used. 

(Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #1592, letter #338)

Comment: Elements the Arizona Antelope 

Foundation supports in the management of 

AFNM include: Use native species when 

restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded 

rangelands. Non-native plants may be used 

under limited circumstances in accordance with 

the Land Health Standards and Guidelines. (The 

Arizona Antelope Foundation, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #2002, letter #273)

Public Concern (TE-14): 

Commenters recommend that BLM consider 

proactive management for the loach minnow in 

the Agua Fria River Drainage.

Response (TE-14):

Loach minnow have never been documented as 

occurring in the Agua Fria River Drainage. The 

potential habitat on BLM-administered lands is 

not currently suitable due to non-native fish 

infestation. The plan contains conservation 

actions for riparian/aquatic habitat, exotic 

species and spikedace. We believe these actions 

are adequate to protect and restore habitat for 

loach minnow as well. If the AGFD or USFWS 

propose stocking the loach minnow into the 

Agua Fria River Drainage, BLM would, at that 

time, consider the proposal.

Public Comments (TE-14):

Comment: We would like to commend BLM 

for its proactive management stance for Gila 

topminnow, Gila chub, desert pupfish, and 

spikedace in the Agua Fria River drainage. We 

recommend that BLM also consider proactive 

management actions for the threatened loach 

minnow in the Agua Fria River basin. Although 

loach minnow was not found in historical 

collections from the Agua Fria River basin, 

according to our fisheries expert, Mr. Rob 

Clarkson, there is no reason to assume they were 

not once present there. Consideration of loach 

minnow should not be discounted merely 

because of inadequate sampling before the onset 

of human perturbations that may have resulted in 

the species' loss. Significant opportunities for 

conservation actions for loach minnow may be 

present in the drainage and we encourage BLM 

to pursue them aggressively. Other agencies and 

organizations have made similar 

recommendations. (Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1516, letter #399)

Public Concern (TE-15): 

Respondent wants historic bighorn sheep habitat 

identified in the Agua Fria National Monument.
Chapter 5

740

Response (TE-15): 

The map presented in the plan was of occupied 

desert bighorn sheep habitat, not potential 

habitat. The AFNM contains historic habitat for 

this species. The plan allows for reintroductions 

and transplants of desert bighorn sheep into the 

AFNM. (See document section 2.7.1.4 –

Biological Resources in Management Common 

to Both Planning Areas.)

Public Comments (TE-15): 

Comment: We (ADBSS) are grateful that the 

DRMP identifies bighorn sheep habitat within 

the Harquahala management area. We are 

distraught, however, that no bighorn habitat was 

identified in the Agua Fria planning area. Much 

of that area historically contained bighorn sheep 

and it should be a candidate for future 

reintroductions. (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2140, letter 

#342)

Public Concern (TE-16):

Commenters believe the management emphasis 

on recreation is inconsistent with bighorn sheep 

management and found it difficult to assess 

impacts to bighorn sheep conservation.

Response (TE-16):

Game species, including bighorn sheep, are 

given management priority in Section 2.7.1.4, 

Priority Species and Priority Habitats. If 

resource conflicts arise between recreation and 

these priority species, they would be resolved in 

favor of the wildlife resources. Also included in

Section 2.7.1.4 are several Desired Future 

Conditions (DFCs) which additionally prioritize 

wildlife habitat management across all areas.

Several Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) are 

allocated for priority management of wildlife 

resources, including desert bighorn sheep.

Section 202 (c) (9) of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976, as amended 

(FLPMA), requires Federal agencies to consider 

State, local and tribal plans, to the extent 

practical to assist in resolving inconsistencies 

between Federal and non-Federal plans and 

provide for meaningful involvement by the State 

in the development of the plan. We believe the 

plan is consistent with FLPMA.

Public Comment (TE-16):

Comment: Further, the Department [AZGFD] 

believes a management emphasis on recreation 

in this area is inconsistent with the Department's 

bighorn sheep management plans and is thus not 

in compliance with Section 202 (c )(9). (The 

State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1348, letter #401)

Comment: We (ADBSS) found it difficult to 

assess the impacts to bighorn sheep conservation 

by aligning known bighorn sheep habitat with 

the various prescriptions and allocations for 

Recreation Management Zones, Special 

Recreation Management Areas, Primitive Travel 

Management Areas, Wilderness Characteristics, 

Visual Resource Management and Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern. Certainly there 

must be an easier way to ensure that conflicts 

between these varied resource management 

strategies do not exist and that they do not, 

either individually or collectively, present an 

obstacle to bighorn sheep conservation or 

towards providing opportunities for responsive 

wildlife dependent recreation. (Arizona Desert 

Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: 

#2141, letter #342)

Public Concern (TE-17): 

Commenter recommends clarifying if the 

Preferred Alternative would restrict motorized 

events in Category II desert tortoise habitat. 

Response (TE-17):

Limitations to motorized events in desert 

tortoise habitat can be found in document 

section 2.7.1.4 – Biological Resources in the 

Management Common to Both Planning Areas. 

In summary, motorized events would not be 

authorized between March 1 and October 15.

Public Comments (TE-17):

Comment: EPA recommends the following 

changes to the preferred alternative for the 

protection of wildlife: It is not clear if the 

preferred alternative would restrict motorized 

events in Category II desert tortoise habitat (p. 
Chapter 5

741

309). The preferred alternative should include 

similar tortoise protections if applicable. (U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA - Comment: #2197, letter #396)

Public Concern (TE-18):

Several comments were received 

recommending that the pronghorn habitat be 

given priority protection, including limiting 

human use and grazing in pronghorn habitats. 

Pronghorn are protected under the Monument 

Proclamation. They feel that Alternative E does 

not adequately protect the population and 

suggest alternative management actions.

Response (TE-18):

We believe your concerns are addressed in the 

plan and that the management prescriptions 

contained in the plan adequately provide for the 

conservation of pronghorn in the Agua Fria 

National Monument.

Public Comments (TE-18):

Comment: AAF strongly supports giving 

maintenance of wildlife habitat management 

priority in resolving resource conflicts and 

application of prescribed fire and fuels 

management projects to improve habitat for 

pronghorn fawning and movement. (The 

Arizona Antelope Foundation, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #2011, letter #273)

Comment: PRONGHORN ANTELOPE In a 

nutshell: Phase out cattle grazing, remove the 

fences from the various grazing pastures, close 

off some roads on Perry Mesa, Black Mesa, and 

the area north of the Bloody Basin Road. Then 

propose and eventually designate some 

Wilderness, and then leave the Pronghorn alone. 

At this point, after all this as been accomplished, 

all of our monitoring, manipulating, and 

meddling with the Pronghorn will be 

unnecessary and you will have accomplished the 

intent of the Proclamation. (Individual -

Comment: #769, letter #46)

Public Concern (TE-19): 

In Section 2.6.1.3, respondents have concerns 

about pronghorn use of Black Mesa and would 

like to see scaled down of amenities placed at 

Badger Springs. In addition, they would like 

BLM to avoid upgrade of roads that might 

impact pronghorn and work with AGFD to 

determine if seasonal closures at Badger 

Springs might be appropriate.

Response (TE-19): 

Many factors affect when, how, and how much 

use pronghorn make of Black Mesa. We 

recognize public use of the Badger Springs area 

could be one of those factors. We have, and will 

continue to work with Arizona Game and Fish 

Department to minimize any effect public use of 

the Badger Springs area will have on pronghorn. 

Suitable mitigation will be applied and could 

include closure of the area in the spring, day use 

only in the spring, or other management actions 

as determined to be appropriate.

Any development in the Badger Springs area 

would be required to consider any effect on 

pronghorn and other monument resources. 

Monument resources would have to be protected 

before any development was approved.

Public Comments (TE-19): 

Comment: We urge the BLM to work with the 

Arizona Game & Fish Department to determine 

whether periodic seasonal closures or 

restrictions on camping and other human 

activities around Badger Springs might assist in 

drawing the pronghorn back to their habitat on 

Black Mesa. (Sierra Club Southwest Regional 

Office, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1829, letter 

#340)

Comment: Biological Resources 2.6.1.3 The PA 

provides inadequate or, at best, weak protection 

of pronghorn habitat. We (Friends of the Agua 

Fria National Monument) are particularly 

alarmed by the low utilization of the southern 

end of Black Mesa by pronghorn. It is likely that 

several factors have combined to cause the 

pronghorn's absence from Black Mesa: fires 

have damaged the vegetative cover, there is 

significant competition with cattle, and vehicular 

use on and near the mesa, particular near the 

Sunset Point exit, continues to increase. It is 

particularly disturbing that the pronghorn have 
Chapter 5

742

quit using this habitat as a lambing area. We feel 

that a concerted effort should be made to 

encourage pronghorn to utilize Black Mesa, 

especially its southern half. Therefore, we would 

like to see the scaling down of any amenities 

placed in the pronghorn's passageway to the 

Mesa. For instance, the BLM should limit 

developments such as large parking, staging, and 

campground areas near Badger Springs to 

reduce human interference in pronghorn 

movement. (Friends of the Agua Fria National 

Monument, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2065, 

letter #339)

Public Concern (TE-20): 

Several comments were received addressing the 

need for BLM to give preference to protecting 

pronghorn habitat when proposing interpretive 

features for the Bloody Basin Road.

Response (TE-20): 

Interpretation of the La Plata site, and public use 

of that site, will be monitored for impacts to 

pronghorn behavior that might affect their use of 

the pronghorn habitat or movement to fawning 

grounds to the south. If it is determined use of 

the site has adverse impacts to the pronghorn, 

mitigation will result. It is our judgment at this 

time that there will be no impact. As shown on 

Map 2-73, there is little overlap between the 

high-use SCRMA for Pueblo la Plata and the 

areas mapped as pronghorn fawning habitat and 

movement corridors. Interpretive development 

would take place outside the latter areas. Future 

signage within the monument will be balanced 

for impacts to other resources, including 

pronghorn fawning and movement habitats.

Public Comments (TE-20): 

Comment: While we do not oppose the 

interpretive features proposed (p158, paragraph 

2), we believe that preference must be given to 

protecting pronghorn habitat. However, we 

recognize the value of a limited amount of 

interpretive signage and features for the Bloody 

Basin Road provided this does not lead to 

conflict with pronghorn or other wildlife. 

(Friends of the Agua Fria National Monument, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2059, letter #339)

Comment: As the roadway (Bloody Basin 

Road) currently acts as a barrier to pronghorn 

movement, the BLM should take great care in 

designing interpretive features so they do not 

further exacerbate this issue. For instance, 

creating large pullouts that would congregate 

human use and idling vehicles could frighten 

pronghorn and impede their movement. (Sierra 

Club Southwest Regional Office, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1819, letter #340)

Public Concern (TE-21): 

Comments were received regarding Sections 

2.6.1.3 and 2.6.1.5 of the RMP. Respondents 

prefer closure of pronghorn fawning habitat to 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) be April 1 to 

June 15 to protect the habitat and limit human 

activity in the area. However, some are 

concerned that restrictions may be year-long or 

highly restrict SRPs activities that could result 

in large scale access closures of the monument 

and subsequent unnecessary user conflicts.

Response (TE-21): 

The pronghorn fawning areas were identified by 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department based 

on survey and monitoring data. The April 1 to 

June 1 closure to SRPs identified in the 

Proposed Plan developed in cooperation with the 

Department.

Special Recreation Permits are issued to 

recreation related activities conducted either for 

commercial purposes or for large gatherings, 

such as hiking or OHV club outings. Because 

they are usually issued for groups larger than 

typical casual recreation groups, this 

prescription is designed to minimize human 

disturbance of pronghorn during the critical 

fawning season.

Public Comments (TE-21): 

Comment: In addition, SRP activities should 

not occur in pronghorn fawning habitat from 

April 1 until at least June 15 to better protect 

pronghorn. (Sierra Club Southwest Regional 

Office, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1849, letter 

#340)
Chapter 5

743

Comment: We do not want the pronghorn 

population to be used as an excuse to limit 

vehicular access in the back country Wlless it is 

truly warranted. Toward that concern we are 

worried about the action in preferred alternative 

"E" to: "Close pronghorn fawning areas to 

Special Recreation permit activities between 

April 1 and June 1 annually." The proposal 

seems highly restrictive and has fees associated 

with it. As a volunteer organization that often 

has work projects in these habitats it seems 

overly regulatory to place this stipulation on the 

grasslands used by pronghorn antelope. We are 

unaware of any specific plans by the BLM to 

ascertain definitively where pronghorn antelope 

fawning areas are, and they do change. We fear 

this stipulation may result in large scale access 

closures within AFNM in the name of 

pronghorn, resulting in user group conflicts that 

are unnecessary. (The Arizona Antelope 

Foundation, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #2010, 

letter #273)

Public Concern (TE-22) 

Several responses were received in relation to 

the protection of the wildlife on the monument. 

Respondents feel to protect wildlife identified in 

the Proclamation and make informed road 

management decisions, BLM should use spatial 

analysis (GIS) techniques and the latest wildlife 

data to evaluate impacts of the route system on 

wildlife, such as desert tortoise, pronghorn, 

mountain lion, bighorn sheep, and mule deer, in 

each alternative. Additionally, respondents feel 

that the assessment of environmental impacts on 

wildlife resources is incomplete and inadequate 

because it does not accurately evaluate the effect 

of motorized vehicles and routes on these 

resources.

Response (TE-22) 

The BLM believes that environmental impacts 

are adequately addressed. Regardless of the 

route network or the Resource Management Plan 

decisions, it is our intention to protect the 

resources of the monument to the best of our 

ability. To that end, and short of making the 

monument off-limits to all humans, standard 

operating procedures in the monument dictate 

we conduct site specific analysis of any activity 

proposed to determine if and how much impact 

might be expected to monument resources. We 

would mitigate expected impacts before the 

activity could be authorized. We would also 

monitor the activity to determine if we were 

successful in protecting monument resources or 

if changes in mitigation were needed to protect 

monument resources.

The routes, including their uses and 

potential/known impacts, were evaluated in the 

context of whether they could remain in use 

without impairing the objects and sensitive 

resources of the monument. The route 

evaluation was conducted using data from 

potentially affected resources and the 

recommendations of resource specialists as to 

the necessity of the routes and the adverse 

affects that were known or likely to occur to 

monument objects. If monument objects would 

not be protected with continued use of the route, 

they were closed, or their potential impacts were 

eliminated through some form of mitigation (e.g. 

Limited to Administrative Use Only).

The analysis conducted by the Wilderness 

Society and Sierra Club assumes a road has an 

impact due to its very existence. The most 

important ―metric‖ affecting the scale of a road‘s 

impact is not measured, which is the nature of 

use the road gets. The barren linear feature 

represented by a road has very little fragmenting 

effect to wildlife habitat or has little impact on 

cultural sites that are not within the actual 

roadway. The disturbance of people and 

vehicles is what fragments habitat and puts 

cultural sites at risk. The body of knowledge 

has little or no research on the number, type, 

volume, season, or other vehicle related 

―metrics‖ that are the real measures of how 

much impact a motorized route might have on 

wildlife species or disturbance of cultural sites. 

Most of the literature assumes a higher traffic 

load than any road or route within the national 

monument. The list of wildlife species was an 

illustration of the monument objects described in 

the Proclamation, which are the ―... expansive 

mosaic of semi-desert grassland, cut by ribbons 

of valuable riparian forest‖ and ―The diversity 

of vegetative communities, topographical 

features, and relative availability of water...‖ If 
Chapter 5

744

these objects are protected, the habitats of the

wildlife found in the monument will also be 

protected. We believe— and the route 

evaluation data supports— the route network in 

the national monument protects the monument 

objects and provides the best approach for doing 

that while allowing acceptable public access and 

enjoyment of the monument.

Public Comments (TE-22) 

Comment: We submit that the assessment of 

environmental impacts on wildlife resources 

(4.11.12, RMP at 500-501) is also incomplete 

and inadequate because it does not accurately 

evaluate the effect of motorized vehicles and 

routes on these resources. Scientific literature is 

available documenting direct and indirect 

impacts on wildlife species, and has been 

previously submitted to the BLM in comments 

throughout this planning process (see comments 

incorporating previous AWC and Sierra Club 

comments, above). We again incorporate our 

previous comments by reference, and will 

reiterate some of the key scientific references 

available. Adverse effects of roads on wildlife 

have been well documented in several recent 

literature reviews (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, 

Gucinski et al. 2001, Gains et al. 2003, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2004, and 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

2005). Some literature provides general 

information and guidelines on the impacts of 

different types of motorized routes and related 

activities on specific species. Others go further 

and give specific thresholds that can be used to 

predict the impacts of specific degrees of habitat 

fragmentation from roads on species. Yet, the 

Draft EIS does not tap this wealth of information 

in the peer review and government agency 

literature. These literature reviews specifically 

cite papers that study the impacts of roads on 

wildlife species found in the Planning Areas 

including pronghorn, desert tortoise, mountain 

lion and big game species. As mentioned above, 

in 2004 we submitted a report Protecting 

Northern Arizona's National Monuments: The 

Challenges of Transportation Management 

(Thomson et. al 2004), demonstrating the use of 

such literature in conjunction with the 

fragmentation metrics to predict impacts on 

wildlife species (attached for your review). We 

have also produced two additional reports with 

similar techniques Ecological Effects of a 

Transportation Network on Wildlife: A Spatial 

Analysis of the Upper Missouri Breaks National 

Monument (Hartley et. al 2003) and, most 

recently Wildlife at a Crossroads: Energy 

Development in Western Wyoming, Effects of 

Roads on Habitat in the Upper Green River 

Valley (Thomson et. al 2005). (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2230, letter #343)

Comment: To protect wildlife identified in the 

Proclamation and make informed road 

management decision we are repeating our 

earlier request that the BLM use spatial analysis 

(GIS) techniques and the latest wildlife data and 

research to evaluate the impacts of the route 

system in each alternative: 1. Assemble wildlife 

habitat use information through compliance with 

agency obligations to use "accurate scientific 

information" of "high quality," and in sufficient 

quantity to perform the requisite thorough 

analysis. Information on the impacts of roads on 

wildlife can be collected from the published 

literature available for threatened and 

endangered species and other key plant and 

animal species in the area. The goal is to provide 

data needed to devise the parameters of 

fragmentation metrics and interpret the results. 

The information should include, but not be 

limited to, distribution of habitat types, the 

impacts of road density on local species, the 

distance of road effects to determine the width 

of effect zones for infrastructure features, and 

species dispersal distances to evaluate the size of 

core areas. As previously noted, we have already 

submitted scientific literature that could be used 

for this purpose. 2. Generate transportation 

network scenarios based on the multiple 

resources the BLM is required to manage using 

reliable data and high-quality analysis. o 

Generate GIS data layers for all roads in each 

proposed transportation network alternative in a 

draft environmental impact statement. o Limit 

the potential transportation network scenarios to 

those that achieve long-term protection of a 

region's many resources for multiple use. o 

Limit roads included in the scenarios in order to: 

(i) eliminate user-created "wildcat" (illegal) 

routes in the transportation system; (ii) ensure 
Chapter 5

745

that each road is justified and managed through 

an analysis of impacts on resources at the level 

required by NEPA, taking into account spatial 

patterns of roads in addition to road length; (iii) 

ensure that each road is necessary for its 

specified and defined uses. 3. Calculate 

landscape fragmentation metrics for all road 

network alternatives, guided by the best 

available science and supporting studies 

conducted in accordance with sound and 

objective scientific practices. Include, at a 

minimum, road density, road effect zones, and 

core areas. Metric parameters and the evaluation 

of results should be relevant to ecological 

conditions, species that are present, and human 

uses of the landscape. In the previous section, 

we recommended "threshold values" for desert 

tortoise, pronghorn, mountain lion, bighorn 

sheep, and mule deer, that are supported by the 

scientific literature and could be applied to this 

step. 4. Integrate the results of fragmentation 

analysis into management plan alternatives and 

use them as the basis for selecting the preferred 

alternative. Evaluate landscape fragmentation 

metrics for alternative travel networks to 

determine the impacts on specific local species 

and the necessary actions to protect habitat. 

Incorporate the results into proposed 

management alternatives. Through the 

application of the metrics to relevant ecological 

conditions and other uses, evaluate the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts of the various 

alternatives. The preferred alternative should be 

determined and modified based on the metrics 

with an objective to reduce impacts on wildlife. 

Include these wildlife impacts with other 

ecological impact data in the planning 

documents throughout the land-use planning 

process and subsequent management or land-use 

decisions. This analysis, once undertaken, would 

help the BLM assess whether its proposed route 

network is likely to negatively affect sensitive 

species. In addition, and similar to the 

recommendation in section IV.G in the 

comments above, for the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, we recommend that the BLM 

undertake this type of analysis when it begin a 

future route designation process. The concerns 

related to cultural resources and wildlife 

outlined here should be assessed in an 

environmental impact analysis for the affected 

environment and environmental impact sections 

of an analysis. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2240, letter #343)

Public Concern (TE-23):

Respondents are concerned that vehicle access 

be managed in a fair way and that limitations on 

vehicle travel not be overly restrictive. Further, 

they are concerned about the meaning of the 

statement ―limit or suitably mitigate vehicle 

routes that cross known pronghorn movement 

corridors and have a type and volume of use that 

modifies pronghorn behavior in ways that 

fragment their habitat or adversely affect 

fawning.‖

Response (TE-23):

The referenced statement is intended to 

articulate the need to provide protection to 

pronghorn under the National Monument 

Proclamation, and especially to describe various 

methods to mitigate fragmentation of habitat 

from motorized vehicles if it is determined to be 

affecting pronghorn fawning success.

Public Comments (TE-23):

Comment: Plans that limit motorized vehicles 

to designated roads and trails should assure 

reasonable access for legal activities including 

hunting. We are concerned that vehicle access 

be managed in a fair way and that limitations on 

vehicle travel not be overly restrictive. We are 

concerned about what exactly is meant by: "limit 

or suitably mitigate vehicle routes that cross 

known pronghorn movement corridors and have 

a type and volume of use that modifies 

pronghorn behavior in ways that fragment their 

habitat or adversely affect fawning. Implement 

seasonal restrictions or closures when vehicle 

use degrades habitat values." (The Arizona 

Antelope Foundation, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#2008, letter #273)

Public Concern (TE-24): 

Respondents want BLM to more realistically 

assess the adverse environmental effects of 

motorized travel, chaining, and so-called 

"restoration" tree cutting.
Chapter 5

746

Response (TE-24): 

We believe the analysis of impacts is adequate at 

the landscape level. Site-specific analysis of any 

proposed vegetation or fuels treatment project 

will be conducted and ensure that the project 

achieves desired resource objectives.

Public Comments (TE-24): 

Comment: We want BLM to more realistically 

assess the adverse environmental effects of 

motorized travel, chaining, and so-called 

"restoration" tree cutting. (Individual, Prescott, 

AZ - Comment: #321, letter #173)

Public Concern (TE-25): 

Respondent suggests BLM change wording 

regarding wildlife releases to allow for new 

populations, reintroductions, transplantations, 

and/or augmentations of species listed in section 

2.7.1.4 as well as allow for future species not 

currently listed.

Response (TE-25): 

Wildlife releases for the purpose of 

reestablishment are addressed under Section 

2.7.1.4 Priority Species and Priority Habitats. 

The wording has been changed to reflect the 

recommendation.

Public Comments (TE-25): 

Comment: Concerning Section 2.7.1.4 Page 

220, column 1 6th paragraph, commenter stated, 

―These types of wildlife releases are not 

intended to establish new populations Comment 

The Department may want to establish new 

populations in order to manage wildlife. This 

restriction needs to be removed.‖ (The State of 

Az Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1378, letter #401)

Comment: Section 2.7.1.4 Page 216, column 1, 

3rd Paragraph Statement Species that may be 

reintroduced, transplanted, or augmented include 

pronghorn; desert bighorn sheep; mule deer; 

desert tortoise; beavers; lowland leopard frogs; 

Mexican garter snakes; and native fishes like 

spikedace. Comment Reword to state; Species 

that may be reintroduced, transplanted, or 

augmented include but aren't limited to: 

pronghorn; desert bighorn sheep; mule deer; 

desert tortoise; beavers; lowland leopard frogs; 

Mexican garter snakes; and native fishes like 

spikedace,... (The State of Az Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1376, 

letter #401)

5.4.7 CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

Public Concern (CL-1): 

Commenter wants to know how to relay 

information when unknown historic and cultural 

sites and artifacts are discovered.

Response (CL-1):

If you discover an archaeological site, you 

should contact the nearest office of the Bureau 

of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, 

Arizona State Land Department, or other 

appropriate land managing agency to report your 

discovery. For sites found in the Agua Fria 

National Monument, you would contact staff in 

the BLM Phoenix District at 623-580-5500. 

Ask to speak with an archaeologist or cultural 

resource specialist to report your discovery. The 

archaeologist may already be aware of the site. 

If not, provide a description of its location and 

characteristics. If possible, offer photos, a map 

of the location, or map coordinates recorded 

with a GPS unit. In doing so, you may be 

contributing information that will be helpful in 

studying and protecting the site. 

Please do not remove or disturb anything at the 

site. Avoid the temptation to collect something 

to show to the archaeologist. By removing an 

item, you could disturb what archaeologists call 

its ―context‖ within the site. Context refers to 

the positions and relationships among artifacts 

and other features within a site, which provide 

important information for scientific research. 

Despite good intentions, if you remove 

something from a site, you may be breaking a 

law. The Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act and other federal and state laws prohibit 

collecting, excavating, or otherwise disturbing

sites without a permit for scientific research. In 

general, these laws apply to any sites that are 
Chapter 5

747

more than 50 years old, which includes historic 

mining, ranching, and homesteading sites as 

well as those dating to prehistoric times. 

If you would like to learn more about 

archaeology or to actively participate in the 

study and protection of archaeological sites, 

consider joining an organization such as the 

Arizona Archaeological Society or the Arizona 

Site Steward Program.

Public Comments (CL-1):

Comment: in the Agua Fria monument, a friend 

of mine found a couple of sites that I don't know 

if anyone else knows about and it would be neat 

to know what to do with that kind of 

information. There mainly historical sites, 

cowboy kind of stuff, its pretty cool. (Individual, 

New River, AZ - Comment: #120, letter #72)

Public Concern (CL-2): 

Pursuant to NEPA, commenters believe BLM 

needs adequate baseline information about the 

current transportation system and its connection 

to cultural resources in order to understand the 

current condition and effects of roads and public 

access and evaluate and mitigate the potential 

impacts.

Response (CL-2):

The cultural resources sections in Chapters 3 and 

4 are based on a careful review of all available 

baseline information for the monument, as well 

as the portion of the Perry Mesa Archaeological 

District in the adjacent Tonto National Forest. 

In addition to unpublished maps and site files, 

sources include a comprehensive archaeological 

overview (Ahlstrom and Roberts 1995) and a 

vandalism study (Ahlstrom et. al. 1992). These 

sources summarize the distribution of known 

prehistoric sites by size and location, the history 

and effects of vandalism, and the vulnerability 

of sites to vandalism. 

The baseline information clearly reveals that 

larger, more visible sites have been more 

vulnerable to vandalism. Most sites with rock 

walls, containing more than 20 rooms, have been 

damaged by illegal digging and artifact theft. 

This size class includes about 8% of the known 

sites on Perry Mesa. Smaller ruins and sites 

without architecture have largely escaped 

vandalism, except for isolated instances at some 

of the larger, more conspicuous areas of rock art. 

The more vulnerable, visible sites tend to be 

located near canyon rims. The density of 

architectural sites and rock art, as well as less 

visible sites, tends to be higher in the areas 

surrounding the largest pueblos. 

Public Comments (CL-2):

Comment: BLM recognizes that visitation in 

Agua Fria will increase as the Phoenix 

metropolitan area continues to grow, and in 

particular the increasing popularity of OHV use 

on BLM lands. See Draft RMP at 2-407. 

However, the Draft RMP provides limited 

information about the baseline condition of the 

current transportation system, as well as the 

integral connection of that system to cultural 

resources within the Monument. Such baseline 

information is critical because Agua Fria 

National Monument was created for the primary 

purpose of preserving and protecting the 

significant prehistoric, historic, and cultural 

resources, including historic landscapes. 

Without adequate baseline information about 

cultural resources, it is difficult to understand 

the current condition and effects of roads and 

public access, much less evaluate and mitigate 

the potential impacts, especially the areas where 

unauthorized, two-track roads will remain 

"open." BLM should provide greater detail about 

cultural resources and the current impacts 

caused by the transportation system, information 

that is critical to BLM's required NEPA analysis 

of the potential environmental impacts 

associated with proposed actions. (Individual, 

National Trust for Historic Preservation,

Washington, D.C. - Comment: #1800, letter 

#402)

Comment: Inadequate baseline information 

about the current transportation system and 

cultural resources. The Draft RMP fails to 

provide adequate baseline information about the 

cultural and historic resource within the 

Monument, pursuant to the NEPA. Establishing 

baseline conditions of the affected environment 

is an essential requirement of the NEPA process. 

See Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Marketing 
Chapter 5

748

Ass'n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 

1988). The NEPA process mandates a "coherent 

and comprehensive up-front environmental 

analysis to ensure informed decision making to

the end that the agency will not act on 

incomplete information, only to regret its 

decision after it is too late to correct. Marsh v. 

Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 

360, 371 (1989) (internal citations omitted). 

(Individual, National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, Washington, D.C. - Comment: 

#1799, letter #402)

Public Concern (CL-3): 

Citizens want BLM to ensure the preservation of 

archaeological artifacts within the monument. 

This is important for professionals and future 

generations. Other respondents believe these 

resources should be shared with the public in a 

manageable manner.

Response (CL-3): 

The protection of archaeological resources is an 

important objective for both planning areas, and 

the overriding objective for the Agua Fria 

National Monument. Sections 2.7.1.5, 2.7.2.6, 

and 2.7.3.6 describe management actions that 

would be taken to identify and protect cultural 

resources. Public education is a way to promote 

broader understanding and appreciation of the 

important, irreplaceable scientific and heritage 

values of archaeological sites. The resource 

management plan proposes to implement 

interpretive development at selected sites, which 

are already accessible and known to the public, 

to offer opportunities for public visitation and 

education that will foster long-term public 

support for resource protection.

Outside the national monument, many areas are 

open to development or other activities that 

could affect archaeological sites. The preference 

is to design development projects, such as 

highways and transmission lines, so that they 

avoid impacts to cultural resources. However, 

site avoidance and long-term preservation are 

not always feasible or possible. In such cases, 

the BLM may require that scientific data 

recovery, or other measures, be implemented to 

mitigate the adverse effects of a project. 

Public Comments (CL-3): 

Comment: Within that resource are valuable 

archeological sites of the period 1250 to 1450 

and the most important thing about those sites is 

the knowledge they contain as to why the 

ancient civilizations that were in the southwest 

disappeared into the desert. One of the 

prominent reasons put forward is drought, the 

inability to sustain population. Those sites are 

treasures that may be observed but should be 

definitely be preserved for the professionals with 

razor wire if needed. (Individual, Prescott, AZ -

Comment: #371, letter #225)

Comment: This archeological stuff this 

gentleman is talking about, maybe it should be 

shared with some of the public. So it needs to be 

handled right, so it needs to fix the area so it's 

manageable, so that these people can protect it 

but also so people can see it. We going to get a 

population that is not going to stop, the ground 

is not going to grow. So we can't put everyone 

into little cubicles and say, I'm sorry we've got to 

save this. Save it for what‖ (Individual, Yuma, 

AZ - Comment: #2046, letter #154)

Public Concern (CL-4): 

Respondent believes BLM has failed to integrate 

a management program for carrying out 

proactive stewardship responsibilities for the 

known and unknown cultural resource within the 

Monument, pursuant to Section 110 of NHPA. 

Therefore, BLM should provide a detailed 

cultural resource management plan within the 

RMP that specifically outlines how BLM will 

seek to protect such resources, inventory and 

evaluate the Monument for cultural resources, 

and nominate appropriate resources to the 

National Register.

Response (CL-4):

A ―cultural resource management plan,‖ as 

described, is an implementation level plan. 

Some of the items requested are standard 

procedures, such as how cultural resource 

inventory is conducted and how sites are 

nominated to the National Register of Historic 

Places. The specific strategies and details 

requested would be developed in an 
Chapter 5

749

implementation plan. Please refer to Sections 

2.7.1.5 and 2.7.2.6, which describe management 

Common to All Action alternatives for cultural 

resource management, in the entire planning 

area and specifically for the national monument. 

These sections define the range of actions that 

would be conducted to identify, evaluate, and 

protect cultural resources, in accordance with 

applicable laws and regulations. In the plan 

implementation phase, these types of 

management actions would be developed and 

prioritized in more detail, then applied to 

specific areas and sites. These actions could 

include the development and implementation of 

site-specific Cultural Resource Project Plans, as 

described in BLM Manual 8130. Inventory 

priorities for the national monument are 

described on pages 235-236. In the areas of 

Perry Mesa, Black Mesa, and the Agua Fria 

River Canyon, newly discovered prehistoric 

sites (with good physical integrity) would 

automatically be added to the National Register 

listing as contributing properties within the 

existing Perry Mesa National Register District.

Public Comments (CL-4):

Comment: BLM has failed to integrate a 

management program for carrying out their 

proactive stewardship responsibilities for the 

known and unknown cultural resource within the 

Monument, pursuant to Section 110 of the 

NHPA. Section 110 of the NHPA requires BLM 

to outline a program to proactively inventory 

and evaluate cultural resources, and nominate 

cultural resources to the National Register of 

Historic Places, and protect historic properties. 

16 U.S.C. 470h-2(a). References to proactive 

management, such as stabilizing sites and 

encouraging scientific research, are vague and 

do not reflect the program plan required by 

Section 110. Given the tremendous known and 

as yet unidentified resources within the 

Monument, BLM must be held accountable for a 

more definitive cultural resource management 

plan in accordance with Section 110, as opposed 

to the vague commitments made with the Draft 

RMP. Additionally, President Bush's Executive 

Order, entitled "Preserve America," reiterates 

BLM's responsibility to manage public lands in 

the spirit of stewardship of cultural and historic 

resources. Executive Order 13287 (Mar. 3, 

2003). Executive Order 13287 requires each 

Federal agency to "prepare an assessment of the 

current status of its inventory of historic 

properties," expanding on the requirement found 

in section 110(a)(2) of the NHPA. Id. 3; see 16 

U.S.C. 470(h)-2(a)(2). Additionally, the 

President requests that each agency "ensure that 

the management of historic properties in its 

ownership is conducted in a manner that 

promotes the long-term preservation and use of 

those properties." Id. 4 (emphasis added). The 

Draft RMP should take stronger steps not only 

to ensure compliance with the NHPA, but also to 

ensure that BLM has considered and integrated 

President Bush's proactive stewardship agenda. 

Recommendation: We recommend that BLM 

provide a detailed cultural resource management 

plan within the RMP. Such a plan should outline 

with specific detail about how BLM will seek to 

protect identified and unidentified resources. 

Also, the plan should provide sufficient detail as 

to how it will not only inventory and evaluate 

the Monument for cultural resources, but also 

nominate appropriate resources to the National 

Register. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2221, letter #343)

Public Concern (CL-5): 

Respondents believe BLM needs to request the 

views of the State Historic Preservation Officer 

and seek information from other interested 

parties who are likely to know about historic 

properties in the area to identify historic 

properties that may be affected by management 

decisions. The respondents believe the few 

archeological site studies completed are 

insufficient and illegal.

Response (CL-5):

The BLM has consulted with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other 

interested parties throughout scoping and other 

phases of the RMP planning process. We have 

continued to consult with the SHPO through 

coordination meetings, as well as discussions 

related to specific undertakings. The SHPO and 

staff offer a valuable source of technical 

expertise in matters relating to National Register 

eligibility and historic preservation. 
Chapter 5

750

In accordance with federal laws and the 

procedures identified in BLM Manual 8110, 

Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources, 

we conduct thorough reviews of all proposed 

undertakings. Reviews of existing files and 

databases, archaeological surveys, tribal 

consultations, and public scoping are among the 

actions taken to identify historic properties and 

to evaluate National Register eligibility and 

effects of proposed actions. 

Community partnerships will enable us to gain 

more knowledge about local resources and to 

work with local groups, such as historical 

societies, to further identify and evaluate historic 

properties. 

Public Comments (CL-5):

Comment: BLM must request the views of the 

State Historic Preservation Officer and seek 

information from other interested parties who 

are likely to know about historic properties in 

the area. Has the BLM searched for, or 

consulted with these individuals‖ The agency 

must make a "reasonably good faith effort" to 

identify historic properties that may be affected 

by its undertakings and gather sufficient 

information to evaluate the eligibility of these 

properties for the National Register. The few 

archeological site studies are insufficient and 

illegal. (Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, 

AZ - Comment: #1590, letter #338)

Public Concern (CL-6): 

Respondent wants to know if BLM has 

conducted a literature search to determine 

whether grazing management may affect, any 

areas listed or eligible for listing, on the 

National Register of Historic Places as required 

by The National Historic Preservation Act.

Response (CL-6):

The BLM completes literature reviews in 

conjunction with environmental assessments of 

all proposed grazing permit renewals. 

Archaeologists compile and review existing 

information in cultural resources files, maps, 

databases, and reports to identify past surveys, 

numbers and characteristics of archaeological 

sites, condition of sites, and presence of any 

sites or areas that are listed or have been 

determined as eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Public Comments (CL-6):

Comment: The National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) requires the BLM to make a 

literature search to determine whether grazing 

management may affect, any areas listed, or 

eligible for listing, on the National Register of 

Historic Places. Has BLM conducted such a 

search‖ (Center for Biological Diversity, 

Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1589, letter #338)

Public Concern (CL-7): 

Respondent believes BLM must address the 

management challenges in protecting the 

cultural and historic resources, which are part 

of the NLCS (National Landscape Conservation 

System) and were listed as part of the 11 Most 

Endangered Historic Places for 2005.

Response (CL-7): 

The National Landscape Conservation System 

was established to protect many of the nationally

significant cultural resources administered by 

the BLM, such as those within the Agua Fria 

National Monument. As you point out, many 

sites are at risk from vandalism and other 

factors. Efforts by the National Trust for 

Historic Preservation and other groups have 

increased public awareness of the importance of 

these resources and the need to understand and 

protect them for the benefit of the American 

people. In line with these objectives, the 

Proposed Management Plan emphasizes actions 

related to inventory, monitoring, protection, 

scientific research, preservation of heritage 

values, and public education. 

Public Comments (CL-7): 

Comment: The NLCS as a system within 

BLM's structure, and Agua Fria in particular, 

present BLM with challenges that must be

addressed - how to protect the System's 

nationally significant cultural and historic 

resources, which are in jeopardy due to 

vandalism, looting, illegal off-road vehicle use, 

mismanaged grazing, development, and lack of 
Chapter 5

751

inventory. Concerned about this imminent loss 

of our national heritage, the National Trust listed 

the NLCS on the 11 Most Endangered Historic 

Places for 2005. Through an increased emphasis 

by BLM on this new management role, as well 

as an adequate RMP that focuses future 

management of each NLCS unit on appropriate, 

BLM can overcome the challenges that threaten 

the NLCS' unique cultural and historic 

resources, such as the resources found in Agua 

Fria. (Individual, National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, Washington, D.C. - Comment: 

#1785, letter #402)

Public Concern (CL-8): 

Comment suggests that Section 4.10, which 

states that the Bureau of Reclamation did 

cultural survey for the CAP, should also mention 

they did 100 percent Class III survey for the 

entire Lake Pleasant Regional Park.

Response (CL-8): 

The mention of cultural survey along the Central 

Arizona Project Canal is found in section 3.6. 

The section was modified to include note that 

the Bureau of Reclamation conducted 100% 

Class III cultural survey in the Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park as well.

Public Comments (CL-8): 

Comment: Page 404, Section 3.6, Cultural 

Resources. The document indicates the CAP 

aqueduct has been surveyed for cultural 

resources. Reclamation has also intensively 

surveyed (Class III) the entire Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park. (Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1513, letter #399)

Public Concern (CL-9): 

Respondents request BLM survey the entire 

monument to protect cultural resources. In 

doing any archaeological survey, they believe it 

is critical that at least one systematic ceramic 

collection be made at each site with ceramics as 

these collections are inexpensive and 

enormously useful for research. Further, survey 

should be completed before providing access for 

recreation to provide critical information and 

understanding of the wider universe of cultural 

sites, specifically around Perry Mesa.

Response (CL-9): 

The management plan identifies field inventories 

as an important aspect of cultural resource 

management. Ideally, we would be able to 

complete a 100 percent survey of the monument, 

compiling a complete database of site types and 

locations. In reality, at an estimated cost of $40 

per acre, it would cost more than $2.5 million to 

completely survey the monument. Since 

inventory is very expensive, the Administrative 

Actions in section 2.7.2.6 include inventory 

priorities, based on geographic gaps in 

archaeological data, vulnerability to vandalism 

or other types of disturbance, and enhanced 

coverage of the areas surrounding the major 

prehistoric villages. The ultimate goal for 

cultural inventory is 100 percent, and efforts by 

academic institutions or other partners could 

help reduce the unit costs of surveys. BLM also 

believes systematic cultural resource surveys are 

critical to understanding both the prehistoric and 

historic occupants of the area, as well as 

providing a baseline of resources in the 

monument. We will continue to pursue funding 

and partnerships to complete field surveys and 

documentation of cultural resources.

We agree that it is useful to collect systematic, 

representative samples of pottery types and to 

maintain these collections in museums or other 

appropriate repositories, in order to make them 

accessible to researchers. We have also 

inventoried existing museum collections from 

the national monument, to evaluate their 

information potential and to make them more 

accessible to researchers. Future collections, 

however, will be managed to support scientific 

research and public education, while minimizing 

surface disturbances and removing only the 

numbers of artifacts necessary to implement 

approved research designs. 

Public Comments (CL-9): 

Comment: In doing any archaeological survey 

it is critical that at least one systematic ceramic 

collection be made at each site with ceramics. 

These collections are inexpensive to collect and 

are quite compact (minimizing curation cost) but 
Chapter 5

752

they are enormously useful for research, 

including site dating and identification of areas 

with which exchange relations were established. 

If these collections are not made when the 

survey is done it is likely that they will not be 

made or even be possible in the future given the 

increased public use of the monument and 

limited federal funds for survey, and 

particularly, for resurvey. (Individual -

Comment: #2161, letter #297)

Comment: the BLM should complete a full 

inventory of the Agua Fria National Monument 

for their cultural resources before providing any 

access for recreation. I believe that the 

information I read said that only six percent of 

the monument has been surveyed so far. I think 

it would be a disservice to the monument and to 

all of the public to not inventory those areas first 

and the actual reason why the monument was set 

up before taking anything else into 

consideration. (Individual, Prescott, AZ -

Comment: #701, letter #227)

Public Concern (CL-10):

Respondent strongly believes that it would be 

unwise to allocate archaeological sites to formal 

use categories, such as "Conservation for 

Future Use," that would remove them from 

consideration for ground-disturbing scientific 

research because predictions can not be made 

indicating what investigations will be needed to 

answer compelling research questions in the 

future. Furthermore, it is easy to imagine a 

situation in which it would be extremely useful 

to do minor sampling (e.g. very small fractions 

of one percent) of a large number of widely 

distributed sites.

Response (CL-10):

Among the sites allocated to ―conservation for 

future use‖ are Rattlesnake Pueblo and other 

prehistoric masonry structures in the back 

country zone, south of Perry Tank Canyon on 

Perry Mesa. The plan proposes that, at these 

types of sites, scientific studies would be 

permitted but limited to surveys, mapping, and 

other non-invasive documentation methods. 

This allocation is consistent with the 

maintenance of primitive, undisturbed 

conditions in the most remote zones of the 

monument and in remote areas managed for 

wilderness characteristics. The intent is to direct 

more intensive research activities toward sites 

that can yield important information, but are 

more accessible, vulnerable to damage from 

visitors, and suitable for interpretive 

development. 

However, a clarification is in order, because an 

allocation to this category does not necessarily 

preclude the use of ground-disturbing scientific 

methods. According to BLM Manual 8110, a 

cultural property included in this category is 

deemed worthy of segregation from all other 

land or resource uses, including cultural resource 

uses that would threaten the maintenance of its 

present condition or setting, as pertinent, and 

will remain in this use category until specified 

provisions are met in the future. 

In the implementation phase of planning, it will 

be possible to specify provisions that would 

allow for limited scientific excavations at these 

sites. The permit applicant would need to justify 

why this work would be a critical component of 

an approved research design, and why this 

information could not be obtained elsewhere in 

the monument.

Public Comments (CL-10):

Comment: Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives & Management Common to Agua 

Fria National Monument -Cultural Resources (p. 

221-2, 234-6) These management ideas seem 

generally reasonable though I do offer a few 

suggestions for changes. First, I strongly believe 

that it would be unwise to allocate 

archaeological sites to formal use categories, 

such as "Conservation for Future Use," that 

would categorically remove any of them from 

consideration for ground-disturbing scientific 

research. We cannot predict what investigations 

will be needed to answer compelling research 

questions in the future. Furthermore, it is very 

easy to imagine a situation in which it would be 

extremely useful to do extremely minor 

sampling (e.g. very small fractions of 1%) of a 

large number of widely distributed sites. An 

example might be a proposal to do a few 5cm 

diameter soil cores (i.e. about 3 square inches 

each) at each of a large number of agricultural 
Chapter 5

753

sites. Such an investigation would have a 

negligible impact on the sites but could be 

extremely important from a scientific standpoint. 

However, the possibility of such a study could 

be foreclosed by a policy that included 

categorical exclusion of sites from research 

through their assignment to use categories that 

did not allow for research use. The availability 

of funding for investigator instigated research is 

small enough and the costs of archaeological 

research are sufficiently large that even without 

BLM oversight, there would appear to be little 

risk of overexploitation of the cultural resources 

for research. In any case, all archaeological 

research would have to be appropriately 

permitted, so the BLM would always be in a 

position to review research designs and decide 

whether the impact on the cultural resources is 

outweighed by the scientific benefit of 

information obtained. (Individual - Comment: 

#2158, letter #297)

Public Concern (CL-11): 

Respondents do not support selection of 

prehistoric cultural sites for interpretive 

development, educational uses, and public 

visitation and request continued consultation on 

the selection and allocation of such sites.

Response (CL-11):

Sites were allocated to public and scientific uses 

in accordance with BLM Manual 8110.41, 

which addresses allocations to cultural resource 

use categories. Cultural properties, or classes of 

cultural properties, may be allocated to one or 

more categories, considering the properties‘ 

characteristics, condition, setting, location, 

accessibility, and perceived values. Appendix E 

contains an excerpt from BLM Manual 8110, 

which describes the use categories in greater 

detail.

Public use, realized through interpretive 

development of prehistoric and historic period 

sites, would be limited to a small number of 

sites, within limited areas of the Agua Fria NM 

and Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. The 

vast majority of archaeological sites will be 

excluded from public use. Site protection will 

be an important consideration in the design of 

interpretive developments. Public use will be 

implemented in a manner consistent with the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 470 ii(c)), which directs each Federal 

land manager to ―establish a program to increase 

public awareness of the significance of the 

archaeological resources located on public lands

... and the need to protect such resources.‖ 

Scientific use applies to any cultural property 

determined to be available for consideration as 

the subject of scientific or historical study, using 

currently available research techniques. Most 

types of sites in the planning areas, if they retain 

sufficient integrity to yield scientific 

information, are regarded as potentially suitable 

for some degree of scientific use. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

sites that could not be avoided by proposed 

construction projects, such as highways or 

pipelines, would be subjected to scientific data 

recovery in order to mitigate adverse effects. 

These types of projects would rarely occur in the 

national monument. In the absence of 

construction projects in either area, the highest 

priority would be placed on the use of noninvasive techniques, such as detailed site 

mapping and photography. Priorities for 

research would emphasize sites that are more 

accessible or have been damaged by erosion, 

vandalism or other activities, placing their 

informational values at risk. At sites that are not 

threatened by ongoing impacts, the BLM may 

approve research designs that are submitted by 

qualified scientists, if permitting the research 

would make a significant contribution to 

scientific knowledge or provide information 

useful for resource management purposes. Strict 

limitations would be placed on any excavations, 

to avoid the disturbance or displacement of 

human remains. The BLM would conduct tribal 

consultations relating to proposed data recovery 

projects and treatment of objects protected under 

the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act.

A very small proportion of all sites would be 

allocated to public use for interpretive 

development. In the majority of cases, within 

both planning areas, the specific sites that have 
Chapter 5

754

been allocated to public use are accessible from 

well-traveled roads, visually conspicuous, and 

already known to the public. In many cases, the 

locations of these sites have been made public, 

without the permission of the BLM, through 

publication in books, articles, and websites. The 

same characteristics that place these sites at risk 

also make them potentially suitable for 

interpretive and educational uses. Sites that are 

remote, inconspicuous, well-preserved, and 

unknown to the public have not, and would not 

be, allocated to public use. 

Interpretive development need not be 

inconsistent with resource protection. For 

example, Pueblo la Plata is an accessible site 

that has been featured, without consent from the 

BLM, in several hiking and travel publications. 

A well-designed interpretive plan would help 

protect the site by channeling and managing the 

visitors, and by providing them with educational 

information that conveys a preservation 

message, an understanding of scientific values, 

and an appreciation of cultural heritage values. 

We find that the majority of visitors to 

archaeological sites are respectful and 

appreciative of the opportunity to visit sites and 

to learn about the people of the past and their 

ingenuity and perseverance in challenging 

landscapes. These educational opportunities 

result in greater public understanding and 

appreciation, which supports stronger 

commitments to resource protection, based on 

personal experience. 

We have reconsidered the proposed allocations 

for High Public Use SCRMA‘s in the Agua Fria 

National Monument and have changed the 

allocation of the Rollie Site from High Use to 

Moderate Use. In the context of this 

management plan,  ̳high‘ and  ̳moderate‘ use are 

relative terms—the former allows for a more 

diverse range of facilities and uses. However, 

even in High Public Use areas, development is 

intended to be low-key and unobtrusive, and 

considerably less extensive than is the case at 

interpreted sites in many national parks and 

monuments. 

Section 2.7.1.5 describes the qualities that were, 

and would be, considered in allocating 

prehistoric and historic sites to the category of 

public use. These factors include the presence 

of above-ground features, such as structures or 

rock art, which are of interest to the public and 

are amenable to interpretive development; the 

condition of the site and the feasibility of 

treating or stabilizing selected areas to withstand 

visitation; accessibility to travel routes; and 

visitor safety. Any proposed action at a public 

use site would require an analysis to analyze 

potential impacts and ensure the protection of 

resources. This analysis would include 

consultation with Native American tribes. 

Section 2.7.1.5 describes administrative actions 

that will guide the development and 

implementation of interpretive site plans that are 

designed to protect the sites, while offering 

opportunities for public enjoyment and 

educational messages that emphasize the 

protection of cultural resource values. 

Interpretive plans will include long-term 

monitoring and protection measures.

We understand that the Hopi Tribe claims 

cultural affiliation to the Hohokam, Sinagua, and 

other prehistoric cultural groups in Arizona and 

therefore supports the identification and 

protection of prehistoric sites in the Agua Fria 

National M and Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area. We value the perspectives and advice of 

the Hopi Tribe, and we will continue to consult 

with the Tribe, in order to address tribal 

concerns as we implement the decisions of our 

Resource Management Plans. Prior to the 

publication of the Draft RMP/EIS, BLM staff 

attended two meetings with staff from the Hopi 

Cultural Preservation Office at the tribal 

headquarters in Kykotsmovi, Arizona. These 

meetings included discussions of cultural 

resource management issues in both planning 

areas. The Hopi Tribe also received the 

summary of preliminary alternatives, which 

included the proposed public use allocations, 

when this document was released for public 

review. We would prefer to incorporate tribal 

perspectives, and to address tribal concerns, as 

we develop educational and interpretive 

programs, and we will continue to consult with 

the tribe in relation to these matters. 
Chapter 5

755

Public Comments (CL-11):

Comment: We do not believe that developing 

prehistoric sites for heritage tourism contributes 

to their long-term preservation. Therefore, we do 

not support the management of selective 

prehistoric sites for interpretive development, 

educational uses and public visitation. And 

therefore, in Alternative B and C, we have not 

been consulted on and do not support the High 

and Moderate Levels of Public Use in Tables 2-

3 and 2-4 for the identified prehistoric sites. And 

in Alternative E we have not been consulted on 

and do not support the High and Moderate Use 

on Page 159 for the identified prehistoric sites. 

(Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, Kykotsmovi, 

AZ - Comment: #1148, letter #384)

Comment: We are interested in the process by 

which it has been determined that the Pueblo la 

Plata area, the Rollie Site (AZ N:16:231 [ASM], 

Baby Canyon Pueblo, Pueblo Pato, the Badger 

Spring rock art site, the Assatre Creek site, Agua 

Fria Fort, Fort Tule, and site AZ T:4:1 (PC), 

prehistoric hilltop sites, are allocated to public 

use. Further, we are also interested in the 

process by which it has been determined that the 

Running Deer Site (NA 5856), Archaic site (AZ 

N:16:224 [ASM]), the Humbolt Ruin (NA 

4637), the Euler site, the Spanish Hill Fort, the 

DeNoyelles site, and Spring Pueblo are allocated 

to scientific use. Finally, how will other 

prehistoric sites be selected for interpretive 

development, educational uses, and public 

visitation or for scientific use‖ (Hopi Cultural 

Preservation Office, Kykotsmovi, AZ -

Comment: #1150, letter #384)

Public Concern (CL-12): 

Numerous comments were received suggesting 

BLM consider eliminating Moderate Use and 

High Use SCRMA to protect pronghorn habitat 

and riparian areas, particularly the Rollie Site 

on Black Mesa and the pronghorn WHA. 

Additionally, cultural sites should not have 

vehicular access closer than one mile. This will 

reduce concentration of visitors and possible 

facilities.

Response:

In the context of this management plan,  ̳high‘ 

and  ̳moderate‘ use are relative terms—the 

former allows for a more diverse range of 

facilities and uses. However, even in High 

Public Use areas, development is intended to be 

low-key and unobtrusive, and considerably less 

extensive than is the case at interpreted sites in 

many national parks and monuments. 

Developing sites for high or moderate use 

provides access to sites that both educates the 

visitor and builds support for the national 

monument and cultural resource protection

In High Use areas, facilities developed for 

visitor use would be designed to reduce and 

mitigate any visual impacts or site 

modifications. Interpretive plans could 

incorporate one or more of the following 

facilities or activities: hardened walking trails 

and loop trails; interpretive signs; information 

kiosks; visitor sign-in registers; benches; small 

shade ramadas; limited stabilization of ruins; 

development of brochures and other educational 

materials; access for approved educational 

programs; and consideration for site tours 

authorized under the conditions of special 

permits. Such facilities as parking areas, 

restrooms, and picnic tables, if constructed at all, 

would be located away from archaeological sites 

to avoid direct or visual impacts, and would be 

linked to the sites by trails. There would be no 

paved roads or parking lots. 

Visitor related development at Moderate Use 

sites is done in a very low profile manner and 

we expect visitation to be low enough not to 

affect pronghorn behavior or fragment their 

habitat. However, before any development is 

done, a site specific environmental analysis 

would be conducted and possible affects to 

pronghorn (along with monument objects) 

would be analyzed. No development could be 

done that potentially adversely affects 

monument resources. In addition, interpretive 

development within moderate use SCRMA‘s 

would be focused on certain sites or areas, 

leaving the majority of these zones undeveloped.

We have reviewed the proposed allocations for 

High Public Use SCRMA‘s and have changed 
Chapter 5

756

the allocation of the Rollie Site from High Use 

to Moderate Use. High Public Use SCRMA‘s 

now include the Pueblo la Plata area on Perry 

Mesa, and the Teskey Homestead area, east of 

Cordes Lakes. Interpretive development within 

the Teskey homestead and Pueblo la Plata high 

use SCRMA‘s would take place outside of the 

pronghorn fawning habitat and movement 

corridors shown on Map 2-73.

Interpretive development need not be 

inconsistent with resource protection. Pueblo la 

Plata is an accessible site that has been featured, 

without consent from the BLM, in several hiking 

and travel publications. A well-designed 

interpretive plan would help protect the site by 

channeling and managing the visitors, and by 

providing them with educational information 

that conveys a conservation message and an 

understanding and appreciation of current 

scientific research at the site. We anticipate that 

public appreciation of the monument‘s cultural 

resources, gained through managed 

opportunities to visit a small number of 

interpreted sites, will translate into increased 

public support and new volunteers for resource 

protection.

Specific language establishing criteria for any 

recreation related development (including 

development and interpretation of cultural sites) 

in pronghorn habitat is in Section 2.6.1.3. In 

addition, the non-impairment requirement for 

management of the areas determined suitable for 

Wild and Scenic River Designation would 

restrict development within those corridors. 

Finally, any activity proposed in the national 

monument would be analyzed for possible 

impacts to monument resources and its 

compatibility with the Monument Proclamation.

Public Comments (CL-12):

Comment: I am hoping that the BLM will 

protect the Pronghorn fawning habitat to the 

greatest extent as possible, particularly by not 

placing moderate use special cultural resource 

management areas in these regions. (Individual, 

Prescott, AZ - Comment: #792, letter #228)

Comment: The National Trust is concerned that 

the "high public use" designation for Special 

Cultural Resource Management Areas 

(SCRMA) may promote public use and access 

over the protection of cultural and historic 

resources. BLM establishes a list of potential 

management actions for "high public use" areas, 

including "building of visitor facilities, which 

may include gravel parking areas, restrooms, 

picnic tables, trash receptacles, or benches." See 

Draft RMP at 2-235. The Preferred Alternative 

has identified 1,570 acres as "high public use" 

areas, which includes Pueblo la Plata and Fort 

Silver, Rollie Site, and Historic Teskey 

homestead. Id. at 2-159. We do support 

controlled visitation and public access to the 

Monument's significant historic sites, as long as 

BLM has considered whether visitation and 

public access will compromise the integrity of 

these resources. We are concerned about the 

"high public use" designation for the resource 

areas identified in the Preferred Alternative 

because it provides the appearance that BLM 

intends to management these areas with many 

enhancements and modifications, which may 

destroy or adversely impact the sites integrity. 

(Individual, National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, Washington, D.C. - Comment: 

#1790, letter #402)

5.4.8 RECREATION 

RESOURCES

Public Concern (RR-1): 

Respondent feels the plan does not achieve an 

appropriate balance to sustain a diversity of 

recreation benefits and opportunities, and 

instead emphasizes either wilderness or intense,

facility-oriented recreation. 

Response (RR-1):

We feel the plan supports a broad diversity of 

recreation types. More intensely managed 

Special Recreation Management Areas 

(SRMAs) and Recreation Management Zones 

are found mainly in the more intensively visited 

urban interface areas and regions closer to 

Phoenix metropolitan areas. Public lands 

including the large tract areas like Harquahala 

Mountains, the Belmont Mountains, and the Big 

Horn Mountains are proposed to be managed as 
Chapter 5

757

Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

(ERMAs). ERMAs are areas where our 

management will be custodial and intensive 

recreation investments will not be made. These 

areas promote dispersed use, leaving a variety of 

recreation opportunities to the public. BLM 

recreation programs will still fund OHV 

evaluation and designation travel management 

planning and implement resource protection 

measures where needed. Except for resource 

protection and visitor safety, few other 

recreation management investments would be

made over the life of the plan in ERMAs. We 

believe our administered public lands will 

continue to support a broad diversity of 

recreation types and anticipate visitor choice and 

the variety of recreation experiences uses will be 

high in both SRMAs and ERMAs.

Public Comments (RR-1):

Comment: Concerning Section 1.5.2 Page 29,

column 2, 5th bullet, commenter stated, ―Sustain 

a diversity of recreation benefits and 

opportunities ... Does not achieve an 

appropriate balance related to this goal with 

emphasis on either wilderness or intense faciityoriented recreation.‖ (The State of Az Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1361, letter #401)

Public Concern (RR-2): 

Respondent was concerned about trash and 

pollution in monument and planning area.

Response (RR-2): 

Outdoor education and user ethics enhance the 

way the public use their lands. Programs such 

as Tread Lightly! and Leave No Trace continue 

to educate users and tune the public into 

becoming stewards of the land. Members of the 

Friend‘s of the Agua Fria National Monument 

contribute greatly in cleaning up areas, 

providing user education, and promoting good 

stewardship on these lands. We urge citizens to 

volunteer in public outreach and educational 

awareness projects. In addition, a toll free 

number has been established, 1-800-637-9152, 

to report resource based crimes such as 

vandalism, dumping, and other suspicious 

activity. Promoting stewardship of the land by 

all users will greatly reduce negative 

consequences of the social, physical, and 

biological resources. 

Public Comments (RR-2):

Comment: I am very concerned about the way 

people respect the public lands, as far as litter, 

polluting the water, like the Agua Fria River and 

any areas out in the desert areas. I've been out in 

those desert areas and I don't want to see the 

same thing happening up here in an established 

park area with undue litter scattered around by 

unconcerned outdoorsmen (Individual, Black 

Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #28, letter #87)

Public Concern (RR-3): 

Several comments were received addressing the 

inclusion of a variety of recreational uses in the 

various Recreation Management Zones 

delineated in the draft RMP. Though a ―key 

component‖ of the WORC document and vision 

was a ―world class equestrian trail‖, their intent 

is to support multiple use and other recreation 

uses such as livestock grazing, OHV, and 

managing for a DFC that emphasizes values for 

open space, scenic and visual quality, and 

cultural and biological assets. 

Response (RR-3):

Within the planning area, it is one of BLMs 

stated goals that we provide a variety of quality 

recreation experiences, including a variety of 

challenges and experiences for motorized 

recreation. We believe the best way to achieve 

that goal and minimize impacts to natural and 

cultural resources, along with minimizing 

conflict with other uses, is through designation 

of a motorized route network. We will be 

inviting public participation in that process so a 

broad range of interests can be represented in the 

designated route network.

The organization of the Resource Management 

Plan may make the multiple-use aspect of the 

lands within the Wickenburg Community 

Recreation Management Zone difficult to 

discern. Though we have allocated the area to 

described recreation uses and support the 

concept of a ―world class equestrian trail‖ 

system, grazing, OHV use on designated routes, 
Chapter 5

758

mining, hunting, and other activities will also 

occur within the area. We are excited about the 

broad support Wickenburg Outdoor Recreation 

Committee has engendered (WORC). We 

realize there are details to be worked out and 

planned, and conflict may arise. With the type 

of broad support WORC has developed, 

anything can be surmounted. 

Public Comments (RR-3):

Comment: WORC applauds the inclusion of a 

variety of recreational uses in the various 

Recreation Management Zones delineated in the 

draft RMP. The statement, "Establish a system 

of high-quality equestrian and motorized trails 

surrounding Wickenburg...(that) would afford 

many opportunities for all recreationists and 

enhance the lifestyle, culture and cultural history 

of community residents," summarizes the 

comments that prevailed during our public 

scoping meetings. Limiting motorized use to

designated routes, and developing and 

designating comprehensive motorized and nonmotorized trail systems as stated in the draft plan 

will ensure that potential conflicts among the 

various user groups are minimized. (Wickenburg 

Outdoor Recreation Committee (WORC, 

Wickenburg, AZ - Comment: #1910, letter 

#398)

Comment: 1.4.3.5.(p. 24). The vision statement 

in our (Wickenburg Outdoor Recreation 

Committee) April 10, 2003 input to BLM's 

federal land use planning entitled "Use of 

Federal Lands Surrounding Wickenburg: 

Proposed Actions for the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Management Plan" specifically mentioned 

equestrian trails, as stated here in the draft RMP. 

However, the WORC document was more 

inclusive of other land uses and management 

actions that include managing lands for multiple 

use, including livestock grazing and OHV use; 

and managing lands for a desired future 

condition that emphasizes values of open space, 

scenic and visual quality, and cultural and 

biological assets. Our "key component" in 

retaining the open space associated with federal 

lands around Wickenburg is to develop a "world 

class equestrian trail," but our intent is to 

support other recreational uses on these federal 

lands. We make this point for clarification 

purposes, and to reiterate that the broad base of 

support from WORC members is the result of 

our inclusive approach to this planning process.

(Wickenburg Outdoor Recreation Committee 

(WORC, Wickenburg, AZ - Comment: #1902, 

letter #398)

Public Concern (RR-4): 

Respondents are concerned that the 

Recreational Resource plans for Alternative E 

are in direct conflict with the Desired Future 

Conditions and Management Actions listed in 

the Biological Resources, Section 2.6.1.3.

Response (RR-4): 

A multidisciplinary approach was used by all the 

staff members when crafting Alternative E. This 

plan sustained multiple reviews by staff 

members within the Phoenix District, staff 

reviews by the Arizona State Office, and the 

BLM Washington, D.C. planning office. 

Recreation uses identified in Alternative E did 

not appear to be in conflict with Alternative E 

biological resources. In addition, monitoring 

and adaptive management will be used to 

minimize or mitigate potential resource 

conflicts.

Public Comments (RR-4): 

Comment: 2.Alternate E - Page 159, 2.6.1.5 

Recreation Resources: The Recreational 

Resource plans for Alternative E are also in 

direct conflict with the Desired Future Condition 

and Management Actions listed under Alternate 

E's Biological Resources (2.6.1.3) as described 

on page 158. (Individual, Black Canyon City, 

AZ - Comment: #1322, letter #282)

Public Concern (RR-5): 

Respondents are concerned about firewood 

collection in the Planning Area and would like 

BLM to reconsider this issue. 

Response (RR-5): 

BLM will monitor vegetation use and resource 

disturbance and could temporarily or 

permanently suspend firewood collection to 

prevent resource damage in the monument. 
Chapter 5

759

Vandalism to existing vegetation should be 

reported to BLM at 1-800-637-9152.

Public Comments (RR-5): 

Comment: A new problem, that of wood 

collection, is has taken a new twist and this issue 

should be reconsidered. In recent years we've 

seen group camps clear all down wood in a large 

area in just a few days. Then trimming of live 

trees begins. Now some long-term winter

campers are even pulling down large ironwood 

trees this year, for use next season. This trend, 

combined with increasing amounts of RV 

camping, makes us believe that neither 

commercial nor non-commercial firewood 

collection should be allowed within the HMMU. 

(Tonopah Area Coalition, Tonopah, AZ -

Comment: #1113, letter #347)

Public Concern (RR-6): 

Several comments received indicated that some 

people agree with having no developed 

campgrounds in the monument, while others 

suggest that BLM should accommodate visitors 

with more dispersed camping and facilities to 

protect monument resources.

Response (RR-6): 

Development of campgrounds was analyzed in 

Alternatives B and C. It was determined to have 

too great an impact on monument resources to 

carry forward into the Proposed Alternative. 

The philosophy of development in BLM 

national monuments has been to relegate it to the 

perimeter of the monument, or to rely on 

services of neighboring communities if they 

have the capacity to provide them. In the case of 

a visitor center and developed campgrounds, 

both Cordes Lakes and Black Canyon City have 

the capacity to provide those services, and both 

communities are within a short drive of the 

monument for relatively easy access. This 

strategy develops a partnership relationship 

between nearby communities and the national 

monument that strengthens a shared identity and 

can encourage citizen stewardship in those 

communities. There is a potential economic 

benefit to the nearby communities, while 

minimizing the impact footprint of visitors to the 

monument. Dispersed camping will be allowed 

in existing disturbed sites, providing a more 

remote experience for those who seek it. 

Developed campgrounds can be installed on 

adjacent public lands outside the monument or 

in nearby communities, if there is a demand. To 

date, overnight visitation to the monument has 

not increased to any appreciable degree due to 

the lack of facilities. Hunters currently represent 

the largest group of overnight campers.

Public Comments (RR-6): 

Comment: Dispersed Camping. The proposed 

rules regarding dispersed camping in Agua Fria 

National Monument's Front Country RMZ and 

Passage RMZ (see pages 160-161 and 163-164) 

appear too restrictive. I believe the rules 

proposed by Alternative B are a better choice, 

i.e., no permits. If use patterns and monitoring 

indicate a more restrictive approach is needed, 

then BLM could invoke additional rules. 

(Individual, Sierra Vista, AZ - Comment: #1133, 

letter #286)

Comment: The on-going impact of a huge and 

growing urban city (Phoenix) on the Agua Fria 

and Bradshaw-Harquahala National Monuments 

can not be ignored but it can be effectively 

managed by adequate budget for though-out 

campgrounds with environmental education 

components. (Citizens Water Advocacy Group 

of Prescott, Prescott, AZ - Comment: #764, 

letter #20)

Public Concern (RR-7): 

Several comments were received suggesting 

closing camping spurs around the Box Wash 

area is not desirable and suggest other options 

to manage camping in the area.

Response (RR-7): 

It is the intent of BLM to provide areas for 

camping except in areas that may merit resource 

protection or where visitor safety is a concern. 

Dispersed motorized camping would be 

permitted within 100 feet of the centerline of the 

designated routes. This distance is the 

maximum allowed and its purpose is to cut 

down on the proliferation of spur roads on the 

open landscape while providing distance from 
Chapter 5

760

the road for safety and to enhance the camping 

experience. 

The recreation niche for this area is organized 

prospecting groups and motorized recreationists. 

We do not discourage dispersed camping. 

While most people camp responsibly, there are 

some who leave their mark where they go, 

whether it is a group camp or dispersed site. 

Some sites become hammered with use. To 

maintain the natural setting, including 

proliferation of vegetation, reducing litter, 

eliminating improper dumping of fluids from 

self-contained camping units, providing for 

visitor safety in reducing congestion (Vulture 

Mine Area) and to provide for scenic views and 

restful outdoor opportunities to enjoy nature, 

some actions may be necessary to provide for 

the values you outlined in your letter. Your 

comment regarding posting and numbering sites 

along the edges of the access road to the Vulture 

Mine Trailhead will be analyzed as we begin the 

process of implementing this document.

Public Comments (RR-7): 

Comment: CAMPSITES: There is language in 

the proposed document about closing some of 

the "camping spurs" which are deemed 

undesirable for reasons which are unclear to me. 

Campsites are a necessary, integral part of 

recreational use. Although Box Wash is now the 

only campsite heavily used, as the population of 

Arizona grows, all campsites will be needed. 

There are certainly not an excessive number. 

Disbursed off road camping is a longstanding 

tradition of the National Forests. Why should the 

BLM restrict it‖ If the plan is to jamb us all into 

Box Wash, this is a REVOLOTING idea. This 

destroys enjoyment of the solitude of the natural 

surroundings. Closeness is good only for 

reunions and planned groups. Remember that all 

roads and campsites put together occupy only a 

tiny percentage of the land; certainly less than 

5% and probably only 2% or 3%. And with any 

kind of reasonable use they don't damage the 

other 95% to 98% of the land. And this is our 

observation of what exists here. The land around 

the roads and campsites remains essentially as it 

was 10 years ago. (Individual, Prescott, AZ -

Comment: #1969, letter #57)

Comment: The camping site at Vulture Mine 

Road, on the North side of Box Wash is heavily 

used and too crowded for our personal tastes, but 

it surely is valuable to those who go there to be 

near the hiking trailhead, to ride in Box Wash or 

just for the magnificent view. If, however, it is 

judged to be too close to, or to impede access to 

the trailhead, we suggest that camping there be 

confined to posted, numbered sites along the 

edges of the space, rather than have the entire 

site closed. For this, appropriate language could 

be added to the second par. from the top of the 

right side of p. 253, reading: "Alternatively, a 

limited number of permitted campsites could be 

designated and posted." (Individual, Prescott, 

AZ - Comment: #1989, letter #270)

Public Concern (RR-8): 

Commenters suggested BLM allow the use of all 

established camping spurs but not allow new 

campsites to be created without specific 

administrative approval and designation. They 

suggest BLM include the following language: 

―Camping and vehicle pull-off from roads and 

trails is limited to those sites with significant 

prior use clearly marked by vehicle tracks, 

unless a new site is authorized 

administratively.‖

Response (RR-8): 

Visitors camping and parking along roads and 

routes will be strongly encouraged through 

visitor information and signing to select and use 

camp and parking sites with clear evidence of 

prior use. Evidence is indicated by vehicle 

access, a lack of vegetation, bare mineral soils 

and other casual use and dispersed campsite 

amenities like fire rings.

Public Comments (RR-8): 

Comment: We think the adoption of the 

language in the draft of permitting camping 

within 100 ft. of all designated routes (p. 253) is 

less desirable than confining it to presently 

established camping spaces (by preexisting 

vehicle tracks), as the language in the draft 

almost invites people to make new tracks-new 

sites. We believe new sites should only be made 

upon application and approval. These dry BLM 
Chapter 5

761

lands are not as resilient as land in the National 

Forests, so the same language is not necessarily 

appropriate. The language to accomplish our 

preferred solution; i.e. camping only at 

previously well established campsites and 

camping spurs, unless upon specifically 

authorized new campsites, would be simple 

enough but might have to be put in several 

places. It would be, "Camping and vehicle pulloff from roads and trails is limited to those sites 

with significant prior use clearly marked by 

vehicle tracks, unless a new site is authorized 

administratively." (Individual, Prescott, AZ -

Comment: #1988, letter #270)

Public Concern (RR-9): 

Respondent feels that the 14-day limit for 

camping should be more flexible and based on 

site specific conditions.

Response (RR-9):

The 14-day camping limit is set by national 

BLM policy. 

Public Comments (RR-9):

Comment: Camping. Under section 2.7.3, 

Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, the rule on 14-day 

limit for camping appears too restrictive (see 

page 253). The rule states that the limit may be 

reached by "occupying more than one site within 

a 25 mile radius within a 90 day period". Much 

of the planning area is remote and does not 

contain long-term visitor areas. I believe the 14-

day rule should be more flexible and be based on 

site specific conditions. A smaller radius (e.g. 5 

miles) may be adequate instead of a 25 mile 

radius. Similarly, a smaller timeframe (e.g. 28 

days) may be adequate instead of the 90 day 

period. I recall that members of the public have 

complained about this rule during a Resource 

Advisory Committee meeting. (Individual, 

Sierra Vista, AZ - Comment: #1139, letter #286)

Public Concern (RR-10): 

Numerous comments were received that 

expressed interest in constructing a visitor’s 

center within or adjacent to the monument while 

others did not want any major developments to 

occur within the proximity of the monument or 

along I-17.

Response (RR-10):

The philosophy of development in the national 

monument has been to relegate it to the 

perimeter of the monument, or to rely on 

services of neighboring communities if they 

have the capacity to provide them. In the case of 

a visitor center and developed campgrounds, 

both Cordes Lakes and Black Canyon City have 

the capacity to provide those services, and both 

communities are within a short drive of the 

monument for relatively easy access. This 

strategy develops a partnership relationship 

between nearby communities and the national 

monument that strengthens a shared identity and 

can encourage citizen stewardship in those 

communities. There is a potential economic

benefit to the nearby communities, while 

minimizing the impact footprint of visitors to the 

monument. 

In regard to the possibility of a visitor center 

near the historic Richinbar Mine on Black Mesa, 

there are a number of constraints associated with 

that location: 

The mine property is an inholding of private 

land, which contains known and potential safety 

hazards, such as open mine shafts and hazardous 

chemicals. 

There is no safe access route from Interstate 17. 

Safe access would require the construction of a 

new exit, the construction of a new road across 

the mesa, or the opening and improvement of a 

route now designated for closure. This could 

potentially impact significant cultural sites and 

permanently eliminate pronghorn from their 

fawning habitat on Black Mesa. 

Sites in this area were considered for interpretive 

development, but rejected due to the access 

limitations and a conflict with pronghorn 

fawning habitat. 

In 2000, the Arizona Department of 

Transportation (ADOT) proposed to construct 

the Sunrise Rest Area, partially within the 
Chapter 5

762

monument adjacent to Interstate 17. ADOT 

subsequently suspended the project, to focus on 

its plans to revamp the existing Sunset Point rest 

area. Currently, ADOT does not plan to 

construct a rest area within the monument. Any 

plans to reconsider the Sunrise rest area would 

be subject to a NEPA analysis that would 

consider the impacts on monument objects.

Public Comments (RR-10): 

Comment: Minimize the proliferation of signs 

of humans on this wonderful, relatively 

untouched landscape (AFNM)! No visitor center 

or major developments. No lights or light 

pollution of the night sky! No flush toilets!

(Individual, Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: 

#1943, letter #353)

Comment: I would like to see the future plans 

of the monument to include more interpretive 

facilities such as a small visitor center, kiosks at 

entrances to the monument, and possible kiosks 

or staffed visitor center at the Sunset Point Rest 

Area. The different management alternatives do 

call for interpretive facilities at some of the 

archaeological sites and I believe this is a step in 

the right direction. These interpretative plans 

should also include information about the 

regions biological and geological resources as 

well. (Individual - Comment: #1487, letter #333)

Public Concern (RR-11): 

Several comments were received addressing the 

need for more signs to educate the public, while 

other comments expressed concern that BLM 

has improperly placed signs about OHV use of 

washes in the Vulture Mine Area.

Response (RR-11): 

We recognize signing is important in areas to 

help the public act responsibly. Once this RMP 

is approved, we will involve the public in the 

travel and transportation plan for route 

designation. Until then, current guidance 

authority comes from the existing approved 

RMP. During the up-coming route designation 

process, which is a public process, we invite 

many of these comments. BLM recognizes that 

interpretive signs at strategic areas enhance the 

public‘s understanding of the resource and elicit 

a positive response by the majority of people.

Public Comments (RR-11): 

Comment: Additionally, several motorbikes 

drove down Badger Springs (bypassing the 

trailhead by accessing the wash from upstream). 

We informed them that they were not allowed 

down the Agua Fria, and they turned around. We 

are not confrontational people, and this 

interaction, again, distracted us from our 

appreciation of the area. We recommend more 

signs and perhaps additional gates upstream of 

the main trailhead. (Individual, Prescott, AZ -

Comment: #825, letter #311)

Comment: I have to mention the currently 

posted signs re "off highway vehicles" which 

state in part, "Driving in washes is permitted 

when they are part of existing roads and trails', 

implying that otherwise driving in washes is 

prohibited. These signs were put up in 2003 

shortly before any hearings on the current plans 

were held and did not, as far as I know, receive 

any public comment. This is surely improper. 

BLM should revise this part of the signs and we 

will volunteer to help them do it. (Individual, 

Prescott, AZ - Comment: #1968, letter #57)

Public Concern (RR-12): 

Respondents feel that the BLM should adopt a 

management plan that will protect monument 

objects by congregating vehicle and visitor

amenities.

Response (RR-12): 

We feel we have adequately addressed this issue 

in the document through the zoning, recreation 

opportunity spectrum, visual resource 

management, and adaptive management 

measures which will allow flexibility to manage 

for growth while protecting the monument‘s 

objects.

Public Comments (RR-12): 

Comment: Monument visitation is expected to 

grow exponentially during the life of this 
Chapter 5

763

management plan. Carefully managing this 

visitation is required to ensure that future 

generations will still be able to enjoy the 

monument as the wild and spectacular place it is 

today. This is particularly true where increased 

human use will have significant impacts on 

monument objects, such as cultural sites and 

pronghorn habitat. Therefore, the BLM should 

adopt a management plan that seeks to limit this 

impact by reducing the planned congregation of 

vehicles and visitor amenities. (Sierra Club 

Southwest Regional Office, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1841, letter #340)

Public Concern (RR-13): 

Numerous comments were received requesting 

the preservation of hunting.

Response (RR-13): 

Hunting on BLM areas will continue as usual, 

and is regulated by the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. 

Our route inventory indicated that there are 170 

miles of road within the monument of which 100 

miles will remain open on this 71,000 acre 

parcel. The 70 miles of roads closed are to 

protect the resources; and not targeted to 

preclude the hunter from non-motorized use. 

Public Comments (RR-13): 

Comment: I would like to see hunting along the 

Agua Fria River preserved. (Individual -

Comment: #78, letter #98)

Comment: As a woman hunter in Arizona, I 

would like to comment on this plan and 

respectfully ask that all lands involved be kept 

open and accessible to hunting. Our state has a 

great hunting heritage and future generations 

should be able to participate. Wildlife habitat 

and protection is a real concern to hunters. 

Keeping our resources here in Arizona will help 

fund our state's programs to do just that. 

(Individual, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #98, 

letter #39)

Public Concern (RR-14): 

Respondents feel BLM needs to re-evaluate the 

data on population growth to accurately assess 

impacts on resources from increasing OHV use. 

Response (RR-14): 

A host of filters exist to protect the monument 

from and explosion of visitor use as your letter 

predicts. These filters include: Visual Resource 

Management; ROS; and front country, passage, 

and backcountry zones. The Proclamation 

dictates the mission and charges BLM with the 

very least of maintaining the existing objects. 

Under the Proclamation, if visitor use affects the 

objects in the monument the monument manager 

must respond to adaptive management to 

alleviate the situation. Some actions may 

include controlled motorized access into the 

monument which can be accomplished easily 

since there are primarily three access areas; there 

are no plans to develop the monument to the 

extent of a National Park Service area, so 

facilities will be sparse, roads will remain rough, 

and the character of the landscape is harsh; all of 

which will keep visitors primarily in the front 

country and to areas that the BLM plans for 

visitor use, such as Pueblo la Plata and Badger 

Springs Wash Trail. Generally, BLM has 

identified that most visitors who use the 

monument have an elevated appreciation of 

archaeology, are hunters which visit during the 

opening week of big game, and those hiking to 

the Agua Fria River. Backcountry use is not 

expected to spike. Passage zone use is not 

expected to increase much more due to the 

rough, jarring roads. Points where most visitors 

congregate will be monitored, while it is not 

expected to see a substantial increase in the 

backcountry zone and most of the passage zone.

Recreational activities that are in conflict with 

the Monument Proclamation will not be allowed. 

These include paint ball and target shooting. 

Ranger patrols, staff specialists, and external 

support such as other agency personnel; the 

Friend‘s of the Agua Fria National Monument;

and volunteers have kept and will continue to 

keep management apprised of existing 

conditions. We encourage our public to have 
Chapter 5

764

dialogue with our rangers and office staff on 

conditions and scenarios they encounter. 

Public Comments (RR-14): 

Comment: The draft RMP includes population 

data, but these data are incomplete for the 

agency to adequately evaluate the impact of 

population growth over the life of the RMP. In 

addition, the RMP states that "BLM's staff noted 

an increase in the recreation use of public lands 

through analysis of the data and through 

personal observation." (3.15.5) RMP at 418. 

However, the RMP contains no data regarding 

the population growth expected over the life of 

the plan, or analysis as to how this growth could 

affect the Monument or planning area. A simple 

search of population projections available 

through the Arizona Department of Economic 

Security revealed that the population is expected 

to increase by two-thirds over the life of the 

RMP to over 5.2 million people in the twocounty "Economic Study Area" identified by 

BLM (3.15.1) RMP at 415. Population 2005-

2025 of "Economic Study Area" identified in 

Draft RMP 2005 2025 Percent Change Yavapai 

County 175,693 260,779 Maricopa County 

3,329,561 4,948,423 Total 3,505,254 5,209,202 

67% Source: Arizona Department of Economic 

Security 

(http://www.workforce.az.gov/‖PAGEID=67&S

UBID=138) Besides this explosive growth, other 

factors that could reasonably be expected to 

increase visitation to the Monument include its 

growing name recognition and the steady growth 

in the popularity of off-road vehicles and allterrain vehicles. The draft RMP recognizes this 

growth in popularity, by stating "OHV use 

constitutes a rapidly growing recreation use of 

BLM's lands. Between 1997 and 2001, the 

number of OHVs sold in Arizona increased from 

7,964 to 23,568." (3.15.5) Draft RMP at 418. 

This is a nearly 300% increase in off-road 

vehicles. Based on these numbers, it can 

reasonably be expected that visitation to the 

Monument will increase dramatically over the 

life of the RMP, and that a significant amount of 

this growth will occur on motorized travel routes 

in the monument. However, most of the impact 

analysis appears to assume that the use level on 

motorized travel routes will stay approximately 

the same. As we have shown with the above 

information on population growth and the 

increase in ORVs, this is not a valid assumption. 

Recommendation: The agencies should develop 

an estimate for the expected level of motorized 

use on routes across the Monument, 

acknowledging reasonably foreseeable increases 

in use, and consider this estimate in all impact 

analyses, in order to comply with NEPA's 

requirement to consider direct, indirect and 

cumulative (including reasonably foreseeable 

future) environmental impacts. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2226, letter #343)

Comment: There is an interesting thing that we 

all have to face is that as the population of 

Arizona grows at 48% every 10 years, the 

private land is valuable for wildlife habitat, 

watershed and not creating as much dust, gets 

eaten up as the population moves in. So the 

public lands become that much more valuable 

not only for their wildlife and watershed 

capabilites but also recreation so we have a 

compounding effect that happens to the 

landscape. And it is none of our faults&we are 

going to have to deal with the problem that is 

presented to us and so there is going to be some 

restrictions that come with that and it is not 

because we did anything wrong it is because 

there are more numbers. (Arizona Wilderness 

Coalition, Prescott, AZ - Comment: #1212, letter 

#137)

Public Concern (RR-15): 

Respondents request a staging area for OHV 

and equestrian loading/unloading on Bloody 

Basin Road near the interchange with I-17.

Response (RR-15): 

The front country zone allocation within the 

monument would allow for various support 

services such as a staging area near Interstate 17, 

provided that additional analysis will support 

such a facility. The decision to develop a 

specific site for parking and staging (or for other 

recreation related uses) is considered an 

implementation decision and could be made as 

part of a more site specific implementation plan 

with its own more detailed environmental 

analysis. Several options could be explored, 
Chapter 5

765

such as a staging area outside the monument, 

west of Interstate 17 on Bloody Basin Road, or 

the entrance to the Badger Springs area also 

provides an ample site for a staging area. 

Public Comments (RR-15): 

Comment: Provide for a staging area just off of 

I17 and Bloody Basin Road for OHV and 

equestrian / load /unloading. Not all will use the 

high clearance vehicles mentioned. (Comment: 

#196, form #2)

Comment: Provide for a staging area just off of 

I17 and Bloody Basin Road for OHV and 

equestrian / load /unloading. Not all will use the 

high clearance vehicles mentioned. Restrict to 

street licensed use only. (Individual, Mesa, AZ -

Comment: #2024, letter #380)

Public Concern (RR-16): 

Numerous comments were received indicating 

the need to increase small staging areas to help 

manage for dust and to increase dispersed OHV 

use, while other comments opposed 

developments for OHV.

Response (RR-16):

We have reconsidered the description of 

recreation support facilities in several areas as 

may be found in the recreation discussions of 

document Section 2.6.2.2. Specific placement

and design of facilities is an implementation 

level action and would be the product of future, 

more detailed planning and environmental 

analysis.

Public Comments (RR-16):

Comment: DFC Management Actions page175 

Under Develop one Staging area.... Consider 

more than one small staging area. Plan for 

smaller staging areas (1 acre or less) especially 

for motorized. With the increased PM 10 and 

future PM 2.5 dust regulations, it will be very 

difficult to manage dust from large staging 

parking areas. We request that you allow for 

more, smaller Staging areas and disperse them 

thru out the planning area. We also request that 

you consider more dispersed OHV use and not 

concentrate OHV use in small areas. (Arizona

Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1646, letter #261)

Comment: I oppose the creation of additional 

facilities for vehicle-based recreation 

(Individual, Laveen, AZ - Comment: #742, letter 

#304)

Public Concern (RR-17): 

Respondents believe by separating nonmotorized and motorized uses through 

management decisions, the RMP has split the 

access to multiuse grants.

Response (RR-17): 

The decision to manage particular routes for 

motorized, non-motorized or a combination of 

these uses is an implementation decision to be 

made during transportation planning. We do not 

believe that grants will be any less available as a 

result of the plan layout. BLM will continue to 

apply for grants to support motorized and nonmotorized recreation. Where it is feasible, 

grants will incorporate both motorized and nonmotorized elements.

Public Comments (RR-17): 

Comment: 2.6.2.2.2.5 Recreation and Resources 

Management Actions page 182 Under Identify, 

analyze... Again you have separated the 

motorized from the non-motorized. In doing so 

you split your access to multiuse grants. (could 

combine motorized and non motorized grant 

monies if truly multiuse trails) (Whiplash 

Motorsports, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1734, 

letter #389)

Public Concern (RR-18): 

Respondents want to see the ideas that OHV 

recreationists provided BLM at the public 

workshops implemented. Additionally, they 

would like to recommend implementing an 

interactive process with user groups and other 

stakeholders to evaluate limitations on vehicular 

access.
Chapter 5

766

Response (RR-18):

The input provided by OHV recreationists at 

meetings, in letters, in emails, and on the 

telephone were all considered in the decisions in 

this plan. It is BLM‘s responsibility to provide 

for a diversity of recreation opportunities, both 

motorized and non-motorized, all in 

conformance with FLPMA‘s mandate to provide 

multiple use while sustaining the productivity of 

the public lands. The recreation planning 

presented in the Proposed Action Alternative 

meets this mandate. 

Much of the input provided by OHV enthusiasts 

pertains to route network design and specific 

route uses. These are implementation decisions 

that will be a product of transportation planning. 

The process of conducting route evaluation and 

designation, then conducting transportation 

planning is discussed in Appendix D. This 

process includes further public participation, 

more detailed, site specific NEPA analysis and 

coordination of uses over large areas including 

multiple jurisdictions.

Public Comments (RR-18):

Comment: The workshops (I attended two of 

them) were dominated by motorized OHV 

recreationists, yet the proposed plan seems to 

come up very short in the motorized use area. I 

never see people walking the trails at Table 

Mesa. Why so much attention to non-motorized 

use in the plan‖ It is obvious that someone must 

have "misplaced" all of those good ideas that 

everyone contributed at the workshops. This is 

indeed unsatisfactory. Time to dig them up and 

put them into the plan, which is what we were so 

many times promised when we came to the 

workshops. (Individual - Comment: #500, letter 

#252)

Comment: AAF strongly recommends 

implementing an interactive process with user 

groups and other stakeholders to evaluate 

limitations on vehicular access and use jn a fair 

and equitable manner through discussion and 

presentation of data supporting the claims of 

adverse impacts. We do not want the pronghorn 

population to be used as an excuse to limit 

vehicular access in the back country Wlless it is 

truly warranted. (The Arizona Antelope 

Foundation, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #2009, 

letter #273)

Public Concern (RR-19): 

Respondents believe that OHV recreation is an 

activity that can be readily obtained elsewhere;

whether that is in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area or in the adjacent Tonto National 

Forest. Thus, OHV recreation should be limited 

in the monument in order to protect monument 

objects. As a result, the limited transportation 

network required by the proclamation should 

not take OHV recreation into account when 

determining which roads to remain open to 

public use or administrative use, and which to 

be closed to all motor vehicles.

Response (RR-19): 

OHV use is an acceptable activity in the 

monument, if it is confined to routes designated 

as open. Most public visitation to the 

monument, except along parts of Bloody Basin 

Road and Badger Springs Road, is realized 

through travel in OHVs, whether the vehicles 

are trucks, SUVs, ATVs, or motorcycles. OHV 

use is restricted within the monument and is 

allowed only where and when the monument 

resources are adequately protected. Under the 

proposed route network in Alternative E, about 

41% of the current route network would be 

closed or restricted.

Though OHV recreation can be readily 

conducted in other places, the combination of 

activities on the AFNM are uncommon. The 

area‘s rugged roads, long-distance vistas, 

undisturbed grasslands, and numerous cultural 

sites allow for an interesting combination of 

slow-speed driving, sightseeing, nature study, 

and observation of cultural features. Thus, the 

resources on the monument create a distinctive 

recreation experience for all users, motorized 

and non-motorized alike. OHV use is highly 

restricted and managed within the monument 

and is allowed only where and when the 

monument resources are adequately protected.

Human behavior is the definitive issue and there 

will be monitoring processes put in place to 
Chapter 5

767

detect, correct, mitigate or eliminate adverse 

impacts to the monument from poor visitor 

behavior. Increased litter, vandalism, and 

resource damage are caused by inappropriate 

human behavior, not the means of access. Easy 

access, of course, can exacerbate these resource 

issues. 

BLM has the proclamation to guide us for the 

protection of the objects and the enhancement of 

biological resources. It says nothing in regard to 

maintaining, increasing or decreasing the 

amounts, types, or mixes of recreation 

opportunities and experiences. We are 

attempting to accomplish that with this plan. 

If current levels or increased OHV or other 

recreational uses in the AFNM detract from the 

preservation or conservation of monument 

objects, these uses will be modified, mitigated, 

or eliminated from affected areas. Mitigation 

measures could include additional route 

closures. Signs and other public education 

efforts will encourage drivers to follow Tread 

Lightly guidelines to promote safe and ethical 

behavior.

Public Comments (RR-19): 

Comment: Section 2.7.2.7 explains that 

"recreation within the monument boundaries 

would focus on activities or experiences that 

depend on the monument's resources and cannot 

readily be obtained elsewhere," and that 

"recreation uses that do not depend on the lands 

within the monument would be encouraged to 

move to other BLM lands." Unfortunately, 

Alternative E fails to heed this important 

prescription. We believe that OHV recreation is 

an activity that can be readily obtained 

elsewhere: whether that is in the BradshawHarquahala planning area or in the adjacent 

Tonto National Forest: and should be therefore 

limited within the monument in order to protect 

monument objects. As a result, the limited 

transportation network required by the 

proclamation should not take OHV recreation 

into account when determining which roads to 

remain open to public use, which to remain open 

to administrative use, and which to be closed to 

all motor vehicles. A more extensive road 

network would allow for significantly increased 

motorized recreation, and in turn, greater 

negative impacts to monument objects. (Sierra 

Club Southwest Regional Office, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1847, letter #340)

Comment: 2. We want BLM to enhance and 

give preference to non-motorized activities in 

Agua Fria Monument. ORV/OHV use in 

protected areas is excessive and destructive.

(Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: #317, 

letter #173)

Public Concern (RR-20): 

Several comments were received in favor of 

promoting motorized recreation opportunities 

and in favor of limiting motorized recreation 

opportunities.

Response (RR-20): 

Every activity occurring on the public lands has 

the potential to impact to the natural, physical, 

or cultural resources. All recreation activities, 

regardless of their source, could have these 

impacts. Improper motorized recreation can 

cause the following negative impacts: soil and 

vegetative compression and disturbance; 

distrubance to wildlife; fugitive dust and other 

emissions in violation of air quality standards; 

damage to cultural resources; and the noise of 

internal combustion engines. This is of concern 

because of the increase in OHV use. 

The Proposed Plan is an attempt to address 

these impacts, recognizing motorized recreation 

as a valid and common use of the public lands, 

while attempting to manage that use to 

minimize impacts to physical, natural, and 

cultural resources of the public lands. FLPMA 

says the BLM should plan for multiple use and 

sustained yield. The term ―sustained yield‖ 

means the achievement and maintenance in 

perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular 

periodic output of the various renewable 

resources of the public lands consistent with 

multiple use.

BLM believes the Proposed Plan represents the 

best mix of uses to achieve the Policy set above 
Chapter 5

768

in FLPMA, including the management of 

motorized recreation.

Public Comments (RR-20): 

Comment: Specifically, please reduce or 

eliminate motorized events and motorized use in 

the Vulture mine area. With the increased 

participation in motorized use and the constant 

expansion of urban areas, existing open areas are 

being inundated with trash and debris. 

(Individual - Comment: #1465, letter #367)

Comment: Many of our events (Arizona 

RockRats) are held on BLM lands for reasons 

such as rocky terrain and publicity of trails, 

location to Phoenix, scenic qualities and permit 

availability. We would ask the BLM not to limit 

OHV use to certain areas, keep current road/trail 

networks open and plan for the creation of new 

trail/road networks, as the Phoenix Metropolitan 

area grows ever outward. (AZ RockRats, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #176, letter #265)

Public Concern (RR-21): 

Respondents want BLM to consider expanding 

technical opportunities (rock crawling).

Response (RR-21): 

Areas available for technical motorized 

recreation (rock crawling) will be selected in 

implementation of the Proposed Plan. Selection 

of areas for this use will include an assessment 

of impacts to natural and cultural resources. A 

decision to use an area for the purpose of 

technical motorized recreation would be based 

on an acceptable level of impact and consistency 

with other resource objectives.

Public Comments (RR-21): 

Comment: The recognition of "motorized 

technical activities" (2.7.3.8) as a valid use is 

appreciated. Inclusion of this as legitimate use 

an important aspect of use for 4wheelers. (Verde 

Valley 4 Wheelers, Cottonwood, AZ -

Comment: #1955, letter #400)

Comment: Please consider expanding the 

technical trails available for those OHV users 

that participate in rock crawling. (Individual -

Comment: #503, letter #252)

Public Concern (RR-22): 

An array of comments was received, questioning 

the scientific data for designating desert tortoise 

habitat. Additionally, respondents feel that BLM 

needs to re-evaluate the Boulder Creek area 

designation to allow for the extreme challenge of 

4x4 recreations.

Response (RR-22): 

The desert tortoise data was inadvertently

omitted from the map presented in the draft 

document (See errata sheet on the web site). 

That error has been corrected in the Proposed 

RMPs/Final EIS and Map 2-92 now shows 

desert tortoise habitat categories developed as a 

consequence of field inventory.

Public Comments (RR-22): 

Comment: I would support Alternative E with 

my amendments below:] I am all for wild life 

and preserving it, it is part of the reason we like 

to get out and see the country side. However I 

hear more an more about the owls, this plant, the 

tortoise closing down areas. Funny how in 23 

years I have yet to see a tortoise in any of these 

areas that have been closed down, in fact I have 

seen none in the wild in Arizona at all. Do they 

really exist‖ I have yet to see scientific data, 

only heard requests to protect from those who 

oppose OHV use. They have something to gain 

by stating that they exist in the area, however 

offer no proof. Please define what type of 

scientific data is required before an area or trail 

will be closed and that a new trail will be opened 

in its place. (Individual - Comment: #757, letter 

#293)

Comment: Please re-evaluate the Boulder Creek 

area designation to allow for the extreme 

challenge of 4x4 recreation. Your planning 

document indicates "desert tortoise" thusly NO 

OHV. This is unacceptable. I request specific 

evaluations of areas be made......... Not just the 

use of a map depicting "desert tortoise" habitat.

(Individual, Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2030, letter 

#380)
Chapter 5

769

Public Concern (RR-23): 

Respondent would like BLM to utilize the OHV 

closed classification for areas that do not have 

roads and routes in them right now, in order to 

simplify the route planning process in the future.

Response (RR-23): 

The OHV open/closed classification was not 

used as you observe. The  ̳open‘ classification 

explanation can be found in Chapter 2, 

Alternative Considered, But Not Analyzed (2.8). 

The  ̳closed‘ classification was not used due to 

the level of flexibility BLM wants to retain in 

the Planning Area. While it is recognized that

an OHV-closed designation applies only to the 

public‘s use of routes, there are sufficient checks 

and balances in place to prevent unnecessary 

route construction.

Public Comments (RR-23): 

Comment: In the general sense, the BLM has 

chosen not to have any open areas in the field 

office. If they have, they're very small and I 

haven't noticed them. They have also not chosen 

to use the OHV closed classification for areas 

that don't have roads and routes in them right 

now. When we move into the route planning

process, it'll make that so much easier if we have 

some areas where we know that we're not going 

to put a route in there or whatnot, so we should 

use the closed classification in the plan.

(Arizona Wilderness Coalition, Prescott, AZ -

Comment: #1103, letter #76)

Public Concern (RR-24): 

Respondents suggest BLM consider ―open‖ 

OHV areas. Comments suggests the plain south 

of Vulture mine area and in the Harcuvar 

Management Unit.

Response (RR-24): 

Open use areas were considered in development 

of our plan and were not carried forward as a 

management option for the following reasons: 

1. Sand dunes and areas devoid of vegetation are 

most suited to open-use areas as they have the 

least conflict with soils, vegetation, and wildlife 

disturbance. There are no places of this sort in 

the planning area.

2. The highest demand for open use areas are 

near the city, which is within air quality nonattainment zones, and particularly are in nonattainment for PM 10. The flat areas near the 

city, such as the Vulture area you described, are 

made up primarily of silty soils that produce 

large quantities of dust. Dust production is 

strictly controlled within the non-attainment 

areas. Outside the non-attainment area, dust 

production is still a potential problem if the 

fugitive dust plume moves onto someone else‘s 

land. The area you are suggesting is very close 

to private land which already has development 

plans filed with the City of Buckeye and/or 

Maricopa County.

3. Resource conflict with other uses, livestock 

grazing, wildlife habitat (especially desert 

tortoise and wildlife movement corridors), and 

recreation activities such as hunting, hiking, and 

horseback riding, make open-use areas 

essentially single-use areas. BLM is authorized 

to create these, but must consider the sections of 

FLPMA which mandate multiple use and 

sustained yield of natural resources.

4. Private land owners, the Arizona State Land 

Department, and residential and master planned 

community developers generally will oppose 

open OHV use areas near their properties due to 

dust, noise, and traffic issues.

5. Section 2.8 of the Draft RMPs document 

states in part: ―Designating areas open to crosscountry OHV use was not proposed because a 

complete designated route system will be 

prepared after the RMP is approved.‖

For these reasons, we have chosen not to 

entertain open-use areas in this planning effort.

Public Comments (RR-24): 

Comment: Vulture mine area would be a 

possible location for a OHV open area. (Open 

plain south of Vulture, in the "flats") (Comment: 

#201, form #2)
Chapter 5

770

Comment: 2.6.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management 

Unit This would be a possible location for a 

OHV open area. Your planning document does 

not address the need for this type of recreation 

area and it is an important type of recreation that 

if not given a managed area to play, will create 

it's own area & more than likely not where you 

would have wanted it. (Whiplash Motorsports, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1758, letter #389)

Public Concern (RR-25): 

Respondents support the Preferred Alternative 

for Special Recreation Permits and concessions 

within the monument; however, commenters 

recommend that the BLM expand the limitations 

on SRPs. Several comments were received 

requesting SRPs only be issued in the monument 

if they pose no potential harm to monument 

objects. They should be carefully evaluated for 

any negative impact on cultural sites, wildlife, 

soil, invasive species, rare plants, water quality, 

and wilderness character (including 

opportunities for solitude and primitive an 

unconfined recreation). 

Response (RR-25):

The decisions for SRPs and concessions are 

carried forward to the Proposed Alternative. 

Any activity proposed in the national monument, 

including SRPs and concessions, would be 

analyzed for the possible conflicts you mention 

and authorization would depend on the outcome 

of that analysis.

Public Comments (RR-25):

Comment: Please limit the granting of Special 

Recreation Permits (SRPs) to prevent 

overrunning the monument with human traffic. 

SRPs should be granted only when and where 

they do not harm monument objects. SRP 

requests must be analyzed for their impact on: 

cultural and historical objects and culturally 

important sites, fossils and geologically 

important sites, native biodiversity, wildlife 

habitat, native monument species including 

sensitive species, watershed health and water 

quality, soil erosion and compaction, seeps and 

springs, scenic qualities, opportunities for 

solitude, the spread of exotic plants, native 

vegetation diversity and abundance, and 

cumulative visitor impact. (Friends of the Agua 

Fria National Monument, Glendale, AZ -

Comment: #2081, letter #339)

Comment: Minimize (or eliminate) commercial 

tours (in AFNM) while allowing individual or 

family recreation and exploration. (Individual, 

Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #1937, 

letter #353)

Public Concern (RR-26): 

Several comments were received expressing a 

desire to both increase opportunities for 

motorized events and to decrease opportunities 

for motorized events in the Planning Areas.

Response (RR-26): 

Under BLM‘s multiple-use mandate, recreation 

including motorized events is sanctioned. We 

believe we addressed the issue of balance 

between motorized events, motorized casual use, 

and other forms of recreation by allocating a 

maximum number of motorized races in each 

zone. Erosion and trail widening is an issue and 

this is also addressed in another response about 

trail sustainability.

Subheadings exist under the Special Recreation 

Permits section. Under the Competitive Races 

subheading, allocations have been made for use. 

This allocation is based on balancing 

competitive races throughout SRMSs or RMZs, 

so casual users can also enjoy use. It is the 

intent to not tie up good OHV riding areas only 

to those who compete in racing. 

BLM believes it adequately addressed the need 

to balance various uses such as OHV events 

against other uses. 

Public Comments (RR-26): 

Comment: Please reduce and or eliminate 

motorized events in your planning and in more 

of the planning areas...erosion and trail 

expansion is always an issue in areas with OHV 

use, often resulting in detrimental 

effects....Lastly, my wife and I find solitude and 

serenity endangered in our local deserts and 
Chapter 5

771

increasingly threatened by the OHV community.

(Individual - Comment: #1464, letter #367)

Comment: Allow permit and/or event limits to 

be established later in response to monitoring of 

resources, users, or social conflicts. We are 

opposed to this action unless the action is taken 

based solely on documented scientific 

information. Not the "Hinny Penny the sky is 

falling or might fall syndrome", otherwise there 

should be NO limits or restrictions made for 

special use permits. Just because someone 

objects to the word "off road" should in no way 

have any influence on permits being issued in 

established areas. (Individual, Sun City, Arizona 

- Comment: #2294, letter #386)

Public Concern (RR-27): 

Respondents feel that BLM does not state the 

limits for confining motorized competitive races 

or which trails in the RMZs are left open. BLM 

also fails to state if the RMZs consider the cross 

jurisdictional trails historically used for events.

Response (RR-27): 

When BLM receives a proposal to conduct a 

competitive race, we must analyze the roads and 

trails identified in the proposal. The more miles 

of roads and trails we have to analyze, the longer 

the process takes. Not all roads and trails may 

be opened for sanctioned events because of 

existing resource conditions such as wildlife and 

archaeology concerns, access issues, etc. If 

there are no issues, or issues that can be 

mitigated then the road may be used for 

competitive races, providing the recreation niche 

recognizes OHV as a primary recreation activity. 

BLM recognizes that a variety of trails and 

length of course enhance the recreation 

experience. The determination of which routes 

will be available for competitive racing will be 

done as a part of transportation planning and 

will consider route sustainability as well as 

possible resource and user conflicts.

Public Comments (RR-27): 

Comment: UNDER: page 191 Management 

Actions "Confine motorized competitive 

races&" In this document you have set limits for 

this activity, you do not state so here, are all 

trails in RMZ open to motorized competitive 

races or are they limited‖ Do trails included in 

these tow RMZ consider the cross jurisdictional 

trails historically used for these event‖ (Arizona 

Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1670, letter #261).

Public Concern (RR-28): 

Respondents want BLM to reconsider the miles 

of route available for competitive events, and 

where and how many competitive motorized 

events should be allowed, specifically the 

Stanton RMZ, Hassayampa SRMA, and within 

the Harquahala Mountain MU (north and south 

of the Belmont/Big Horn Mountains). 

They feel that BLM is singling out or ignoring 

the OHV users’ long history of off-road use and 

competition, while favoring non-motorized use. 

Response (RR-28): 

We have reconsidered where to have events, 

how many events to permit, and how to allocate 

routes to competitive racing in our Proposed 

Alternative. The recreation discussions under

the Management Units in Section 2.6.2.2 discuss 

additional RMZs where races would be 

considered and that the number of events and 

miles of route allocated will be based on trail 

sustainability. Sustainability determination will 

consider environmental factors (including, but 

not limited to: soil erosion, wildlife or cultural 

resource conflicts, conflicts with grazing 

management, air quality) as well as social 

concerns (including, but not limited to: noise, 

conflict with casual uses or other organized 

events, conflicts with other recreation activities 

such as hunting).

Public Comments (RR-28): 

Comment: Please do not RESTRICT, DENY, 

LIMIT OR PROHIBIT COMPETITIVE 

EVENTS and family use in this plan. Spending 

time in the desert has been part of my family 

tradition sense I was a kid. My family and 

friends have been enjoying the woods and desert 

on motorcycles, 3 wheelers, and recently in the 

last few years on quads. Now I can continue to 

share these times with my kids. These are times 

of family bonding, camping, exploring and 
Chapter 5

772

respect for the beautiful public lands that makes 

this country so great. These times brings the 

family together, and makes memories that last a 

life time. Please do not take this tradition away 

from my family. (Individual - Comment: #236, 

letter #292)

Comment: Land Use allocation pages 193,194 

and 195 described as San Domingo Wash RMZ 

(16.040 acres BLM) While, we agree that this 

area has existing tracks and routes for extensive 

motorized use, as well as competitive use and 

are encouraged that BLM would like to allocate 

10 miles of single and two track routes, it is not 

nearly enough. To have a quality OHV event as 

you are already aware a much larger track of 

land is needed a minimum of 50 miles. Again 

BLM wishes to LIMIT motorized competitive 

events to (2) this IS NOT acceptable to any 

current or past user or promoter of competitive 

events. Limits appear to be arbitrary AND 

definitely not based on any true scientific data 

and will most certainly cause the demise of 

several responsible promoters currently using 

BLM lands. We feel that permits should NOT be 

limited but rather addressed individually as it is 

now. Same issue with regard to Vulture Mine 

RMZ (30,100 acres BLM) page 195 under 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS. Locate 15 miles 

of single and two track, motorized routes to 

provide an array of challenges for truck, buggy, 

ATV, and motorcycle competitive races. We 

applaud you for your efforts IF you are 

considering adding an extra 15 miles to the 

already existing trails and routes. If not this IS 

NOT AN ACCEPTABLE AMOUNT OF 

TRAILS FOR QUALITY COMPETITIVE 

EVENTS AND BLM IS WELL AWARE OF 

IT; AS YOU HAVE BEEN PERMITTING 

COMPETITIVE EVENTS FOR WELL OVER 

40 YEARS IN THIS AREA. It looks like BLM 

is trying their best to squeeze out competitive 

use of public lands by either making the area and 

or the fees so unreasonable that putting on a 

quality event will be impossible. Same page 

paragraph G...Limit the number of motorized 

competitive races to 4 per year. WE OBJECT 

AND WANT NO LIMITS to the amount of 

events permitted but viewed on a case-by-case 

basis. (Whiplash Motorsports, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1752, letter #389)

Public Concern (RR-29): 

Commenters suggest an alternative approach be 

developed to limit the numbers of competitive 

motorized events to 30 throughout the whole 

Planning Area. This would disperse use among 

RMZs by rotating which one would bear the 

largest number of events within a given time 

frame.

Response (RR-29): 

We have reconsidered where, how many events, 

and how to allocate routes to competitive racing 

in our Proposed Alternative. The recreation 

discussions under the Management Units in 

Section 2.6.2.2 discuss additional RMZs where 

races would be considered and that the number 

of events and miles of route allocated will be 

based on trail sustainability. Sustainability 

determination will consider environmental 

factors (including, but not limited to: soil 

erosion, wildlife or cultural resource conflicts, 

conflicts with grazing management, air quality) 

as well as social concerns (including, but not 

limited to: noise, conflict with casual uses or 

other organized events, conflicts with other 

recreation activities such as hunting.)

Public Comments (RR-29): 

Comment: OHV and Mechanized Competitive 

Events Suggested solution: Allow number of 

motorized competitive races based on number of 

events held in other areas of this Plan i.e. set a 

total limit for the area as a whole plan allow a 

max 25 races total for whole plan. More popular 

area will carry majority of use....mitigate 

impacts to that area for more intense use. Each 

year after, now that you have data, you could 

rotate the RMZ that would incur the most use, 

thereby resting areas for one to two seasons. 

Never allow the majority of the motorized 

Competitive events to be held in any one RMZ 

two years in a row. This will make use 

sustainable and allow continuation of this type 

of event. (Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle 

Coalition, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1675, 

letter #261)

Comment: UNDER: page194 Management 

Actions "Locate at least 10 miles..." More than 
Chapter 5

773

10 miles of trail will be required to keep trails 

sustainable for OHV competitive events. Do not 

limit. Are all trails in this area open to 

Competitive events‖ Example , a AMA National 

Enduro requires a minimum of 85 miles of 

course or a 25 mile course that has 3 laps for 3 

different classes of competitors would be over 

used in one event must vary trails for this type of 

event. Allow resting and different course layouts 

for each event. Must have area dispersed enough 

to protect trails from over use and allow 

connectivity to other adjoining agency lands. 

(Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1671, letter #261)

Public Concern (RR-30): 

Commenters suggest reducing competitive 

events from eight to three to protect soils in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area and to 

limit events in PM10 non-attainment areas.

Response (RR-30): 

OHV or non-motorized travel routes causing or 

contributing to BLM non-compliance with 

Maricopa County‘s PM10 and fugitive dust 

regulations and standards will be evaluated and 

appropriate actions taken to bring the route or 

routes into compliance with air quality 

regulations. The compliance action could take 

many forms: route closure, seasonal route 

closure, dust-abatement treatments, surfacing, 

watering or re-routing the trail to areas with 

stable soils. These actions, undertaken on 

specific routes, or on a route network, could 

under the worst case, lead to the long-term 

scenario addressed under Alternative D. 

BLM, however, believes that Alternative E 

offers the best solution to managing dust and 

keeping popular areas open to OHV travel and 

citizen enjoyment. Adaptive Management of our 

routes and route networks will allow BLM to 

take needed and flexible actions on routes and 

route networks in non-compliance with air 

quality rules. Alternative E allows BLM to take 

action on a gradual basis, attempting to resolve 

air quality non-compliance issues on an ―as we 

go‖ basis, instead of promoting a ―rolling nearmandated closure‖ over the 10 to 20 year life of 

the plan. Under Alternative D, there would be 

limited incentives to find solutions to noncompliance except closure or user displacement. 

BLM prefers the flexibility of Alternative E to 

work out solutions and options, in association 

with our deeply involved community and user 

groups, instead of implementing ―rote‖ or near 

―mandated‖ area closures due to non-compliance 

over the next 20-years. This provides BLM with 

maximum flexibility over the life of the plan in 

addressing vehicle-travel related impacts to air 

quality per the PM10 non-attainment area within 

Maricopa County.

BLM will only authorize organized motorized 

and competitive and speed events when they are 

in compliance with Maricopa County air quality 

regulations, including PM10 non-attainment 

areas and fugitive dust rules. All special 

recreation permits authorized would ensure 

compliance with Federal, State, county, and 

local air quality regulations.

Arizona and Maricopa County air quality rules 

are being revised to address methods for 

attaining air quality standards within the current 

nonattainment areas. BLM activities within the 

nonattainment area will be modified to conform 

to state and county air quality rules. Upon 

completion of the Resource Management Plan, a 

subsequent Air Quality Compliance Plan, which 

will constitute an implementation level plan and 

environmental analysis, will be conducted to 

determine the alternative and appropriate means 

to comply with those rules. 

See also response one RR-28.

Public Comments (RR-30): 

Comment: The DEIS states that in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala planning area, the 

permitted recreation activity causing the most 

disturbance to soils are the 3 motorized 

competitive races/year (p. 451). The preferred 

alternative allows for an increase of motorized 

competitive races 8 per year. The disturbance 

from these activities includes: more visible 

depressions, holes, rills and deep ruts forming; 

larger gullies forming due to poor drainage in 

heavy rains; vehicles churning up soils on the 

routes; breaking soil crusts due to vehicle 

passing, accidents, and course cutting; and soil 
Chapter 5

774

berms created at curves leading to increased 

wind and water erosion. Once arid desert soil 

crusts are disturbed and barren soil is exposed, 

they can take a long time to recover (p. 451). 

Recommendation: We recommend reducing the 

amount of races in the preferred alternative to 

maintain the current level of 3/year to protect 

soil and water resources, especially in previously 

undisturbed areas. If the demand for more 

motorized competitive races in the future forces 

consideration for an increase, this could be 

evaluated at that time in a subsequent NEPA 

document. (U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, San Francisco, CA - Comment: #2179, 

letter #396)

Comment: The southern half off Hieroglyphic 

Mountains Special Recreation Management 

Area (SRMA) lies in an area designated as 

nonattainment for the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particular matter 

less than 10 microns (PM10)(Map 2-26, 3-3). 

The DEIS states that designating this area as an 

SRMA could concentrate off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use, and generate fugitive dust. 

Alternative D's approach that would phase out 

motorized uses in the generate southern half of 

the Castle Hot Springs Management Unit of this 

management unit is designated nonattainment 

for PM-10, reducing sources of fugitive dust in 

this area should be a priority. Recommendation: 

BLM should consider adopting the approach 

outlined in Alternative D that phases out 

motorized activity in the southern half of the 

Castle Hot Springs Management Unit. At a 

minimum, the following mitigation should be 

adopted to reduce OHV impacts to air quality in 

the PM10 non-attainment: (1) Motorized 

competitive races should not occur in the PM10 

non-attainment area of Bradshaw-Harquahala on 

days the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality forecasts high pollution days in its dust 

forecasts. (U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, San Francisco, CA - Comment: #2180, 

letter #396)

Public Concern (RR-31): 

Several comments were received suggesting that 

if BLM is going to close routes and competitive 

events to motorized users, then these areas 

should be closed to all types of competitive 

events.

Response (RR-31): 

Competitive events will be considered on a caseby-case basis. Competitive use means any 

organized, sanctioned, or structured use, event, 

or activity on public land in which two or more 

contestants compete and either of the following 

elements applies: 1. Participants register, enter, 

or complete an application for the event. 2. A 

predetermined course or area is designated. By 

definition, competitive events can exist where 

impacts can be minimal. For example, poker 

runs in vehicles, on horses, or on foot that aren‘t 

speed based and stay on the roads and trails is a 

competitive event; likewise, so are orienteering 

competitions.

Recreation niches have been identified for the 

various SRMAs throughout the Planning Area. 

This niche helps target recreational outcomes for 

these specific areas. For example, the Black 

Canyon SRMA, Black Canyon Trail RMZ 

establishes this area as a non-motorized 

recreation area; while an area such as the San 

Domingo Wash recognizes motorized recreation 

as a primary use and therefore allows 

competitive OHV races. The Black Canyon 

SRMA acknowledges there is OHV use, but it is 

not the primary focus of the area, and therefore, 

prohibits motorized competitive races. OHV 

competitive racing opportunities are available in 

areas that acknowledge OHV use as the primary 

recreation niche. BLM understands OHV users 

are not out to pillage public lands, but are there 

to appreciate them. There are public land users 

that prefer their recreation to be separated from 

OHV recreational use for numerous reasons.

Public Comments (RR-31): 

Comment: 2.6.1.5 Recreation Resources 

Alternative E Under Front Country RMZ Under 

Prohibit competitive motorized or mechanized 

races....This is one of the few areas the OHV 

public believes should be closed to Competitive 

events....ALL competitive events. The reasons 

for banning competitive motorized or 

mechanized races should also preclude ANY 

Competitive events. We request NO type of 
Chapter 5

775

Competitive events be allowed. Where is the 

data that supports non motorized have no impact 

on DFC‖ (Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle 

Coalition, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1627, 

letter #261)

Comment: Throughout this plan it appears that 

competitive events are listed as impact. We want 

you to recognize that this is true recreation 

because it is what we do. When we are not 

racing, we like to go out a see our public lands. 

That does not mean we want and go out and rape 

and pillage our public lands, it means we want to 

go out and see them. (Whiplash Motorsports, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #2032, letter #216)

Public Concern (RR-32): 

Commenters are concerned about the economic 

impacts of reducing competitive events and 

opportunities for motorized recreation.

Response (RR-32): 

OHV use has a substantial economic impact in 

Arizona due to the large numbers of users and 

vehicles. On the other hand, sanctioned 

motorized competitive events cannot be 

construed to be a large part of this equation due 

to the small numbers of citizens involved with 

these permitted activities. Assuredly, there are 

beneficial economic impacts from the purchase 

of supplies, fuel, food, and lodging in nearby 

communities, but this can not be quantified to 

any measurable degree with current information. 

The economic benefits would probably be 

greater and be more noticeable in smaller 

communities as opposed to the large cities 

within the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

The overall economic importance of OHV, 

which includes driving on back roads, 

sightseeing, hiking/walking, picnicking, and 

camping, indicated in a 2002 study, ―The 

Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle 

Recreation‖ by Jonathan Silberman, PhD, 

Arizona State University West; ―that there was a 

total of 12,224,707 OHV user days in Arizona. 

In Maricopa County, there were over 2 million 

OHV days resulting in over 13,000 full and parttime jobs, OHV expenditures of $1,358.1 

million, salaries and wages of $428.9 million 

and state tax revenues of $78.5 million. In 

Yavapai County there were almost 1,200,000 

OHV days resulting in over 2,000 full and parttime jobs, OHV expenditures of $183.0 million, 

salaries and wages of $43.9 million, and state 

tax revenues of $9.2 million. In La Paz County 

there were 344,550 OHV days resulting in 459 

full and part-time jobs, OHV expenditures of 

$44.1 million, salaries and wages of $8.3 

million, and state tax revenues of $1.9 million. 

BLM in conjunction with other land 

jurisdictions contributes greatly to these 

statistics, but there have not been any studies on 

economic impacts resulting from single OHV 

type events, in particular race event that include 

from 75 to 200 participants, where most 

participants travel from distant locations, camp 

on site, and bring most of their supplies (food, 

vehicle parts, etc.) with them.

Public Comments (RR-32): 

Comment: The OHV industry is growing by 

leaps and bounds, the need for MORE land is 

obvious. If the BLM is successful in adopting 

Alternative E of this draft it will negatively 

effect ALL MOTORIZED COMPETITIVE 

AND NON-COMPETITIVE EVENTS. The 

adoption of Alternative E the way it is now 

written, will in fact cause the demise of this 

sport and its promoters, subsequently causing 

these individuals to loose their lively hood., not 

to mention the financial impact in the 

neighboring communities such as hotels, 

restaurants, auto parts, service stations, 

convenience stores and the list goes on. We 

cannot survive without the use of public lands. 

We cannot be pigeon holed on 10-acre parcels to 

provide quality events. Further more we are 

NOT Buffalo and we refuse to be 

ELIMINATED. (Whiplash Motorsports, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1710, letter #389)

Comment: We had requested information on 

the economic loss to the Counties and 

Communities in the 2003 draft, along with the 

decline in tourism from eliminating Motorized 

Competitive events but we do not see any data 

addressing this impact. (Arizona Off-Highway 

Vehicle Coalition, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1697, letter #261).
Chapter 5

776

Public Concern (RR-33): 

Respondents believe that non-motorized 

recreation should be confined to designated 

trails as opposed to allowing cross country nonmotorized travel in order to prevent possible 

resource damage and to create ―equal 

treatment‖ with motorized users.

Response (RR-33):

Cross-country non motorized travel by foot, 

horse or mountain bike can lead to the creation 

of permanent trails, sometimes called ―social‖ or 

―user‖ trails that braid across the landscape. 

Most social trailing is a result of intense public 

use near residential properties, trailheads, target 

shooting areas, dispersed campsites, and 

motorized staging areas. Ribbons of trails may 

develop from users choosing different trails to 

walk.

These user-created and non-engineered trails are 

subject to hardening or erosion and may cross 

and impact sensitive plant and wildlife habitats 

or cultural areas. Cryptogrammic (black crusty 

soil) desert soils and desert pavement are fragile 

and easily damaged. These soils show signs of 

footprints or hoof prints for a long time. Erosion 

can lead to more fugitive dust conditions and 

loss of plant life from soil erosion. Erosion and 

linear trail cutting could impact the scenic views 

for other users in the immediate area. 

Making vehicle allocations of ―open,‖ ―closed,‖ 

or ―limited,‖ are required RMP decisions, no 

such requirement exists for non-motorized 

recreation. The determination of need to 

develop non-motorized trails can be done as a 

part of transportation and recreation planning, 

which in an implementation action. Nonmotorized trail planning is underway in the 

vicinity of Wickenburg and Black Canyon City 

and other areas may be evaluated as time and 

funding allow. 

The Soils Resources, Cultural Resources, 

Biological Resources, Visual Resource and Air 

Quality Environmental Consequences Analysis 

in Chapter Four have been modified to address 

the above information.

Public Comments (RR-33):

Comment: Another issue in this Document that 

is not supported by data is banning cross-country 

travel to motorized users only. The OHV 

community agrees that cross-country travel 

should be banned (except in designated open 

OHV areas) for OHV travel. We also believe

that cross-country travel should be banned for 

ALL users. BLM officials tell us that the reason 

non -motorized are allowed to go cross country 

is they do not cause resource damage, but upon 

further probing on the issue, non motorized 

cross country travel becomes an issue when use 

goes from very light use to moderate use at 

which time new trails are created&&- so as long 

as the use is light - they have no issues with the 

non-motorized travel&&- what is good for one 

group should be good for all groups - OHV does 

not ask for special treatment , we only ask for 

equal treatment. (Whiplash Motorsports, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1782, letter #389)

Comment: 2.6.1.9 Travel Management

Management Actions Cross Country Motorized 

Travel Is Prohibited..... Again you have singled 

out one user group (OHV) as causing damage 

and all other users as causing no damage from 

Cross Country Travel. We request all users be 

restricted to existing designated trails and NO 

cross Country Travel be allowed by Any user 

Group....Motorized or Non motorized. Cross 

Country Travel creates new trail no matter who 

it is. Data is required to show no impact from 

non motorized. (Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle 

Coalition, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1630, 

letter #261)

Public Concern (RR-34): 

Several comments were received supporting 

opportunities for more non-motorized 

recreation, including the development of nonmotorized trails, especially in the monument.

Response (RR-34): 

Non-motorized trails, just like any other 

authorized activity, will only be developed 

where there is an identified need and where they 

will not adversely impact sensitive areas or 

monument resources. For example, some 

species, such as pronghorn, are often more 
Chapter 5

777

disturbed by human foot or equestrian traffic 

than by motorized traffic. If use of a trail might 

disturb pronghorn behavior and restrict or 

fragment habitat, it would not be constructed. 

On the other hand, a trail could enhance a 

sensitive resource by diverting people away 

from it. Some closed motorized routes may be 

considered for conversion to non-motorized 

trails

Public Comments:

Comment: I'm a hiker mostly. It would be good 

to see some actual trails as well. (Individual, 

New River, AZ - Comment: #119, letter #72)

Comment: As has been previously described, 

BLM's priority for management is preservation 

of Monument Objects. Also as previously 

described, one of the most significant threats to 

these resources is high-intensity recreation. 

Therefore, we recommend that the BLM 

emphasize low-impact recreation opportunities 

and manage as much of the Monument as 

possible for backcountry use. In addition, all 

recreation resources should be designed to 

protect Monument objects, reduce the footprint 

and visual impact of development, use low and 

alternative energy sources, and use minimal 

water. (The Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness 

Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: #2274, letter 

#343)

Public Concern (RR-35): 

Respondents want clarification in the document 

that non-motorized and non-mechanical only 

pertains to human conveyances (excluding

wheelchairs and specifically state that wheeled 

game carriers will be allowed.

Response (RR-35): 

The document has been changed to reflect that 

non-motorized and mechanized conveyances 

like mountain bikes would be acceptable on 

designated trails within areas managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. Wheeled 

game carriers can be used to travel cross-country 

to retrieve game in lands allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics.

Public Comments (RR-35): 

Comment: Concerning Section 2.7.1.6 Page 

223, column 2 1st paragraph, commenter stated 

―Through non-motorized and non-mechanical 

means....Non-motorized conveyances.... 

Comment This needs to be clarifed that nonmotorized and non-mechanical only pertains to 

human conveyances (excluding wheelchairs). 

Also need to specifically state that wheeled 

game carriers will be allowed. This would be 

consistent with language on page 261.‖ (The 

State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1381, letter #401)

Public Concern (RR-36): 

Respondents view primitive and semi-primitive 

non-motorized as potential threats to ―... 

wildlife conservation activities and responsive 

wildlife dependent recreation.‖ They are 

requesting an accurate analysis of impacts of 

TMAs and Recreation Management Zones on 

wildlife water developments.

Response (RR-36): 

We have revised the document to include 

Standards for recreation settings in document 

Section 2.7.1.11.and have included a brief 

description of how these settings would be 

addressed in implementation of recreation 

settings. Primitive and Semi-Primitive NonMotorized recreation settings would maintain 

the non-roaded character of areas that currently 

are non-roaded. Wildlife conservation activities 

and responsive wildlife dependent recreation 

activities would continue to be conducted 

generally in the same type and manor as they 

now are. A landscape level analysis of RMZs 

and allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics on wildlife water developments 

or other wildlife management activities is 

presented in Sections 4.11.7, 4.11.14, 4.14.4, 

4.14.14, and 4.21.4.

A specific impact analysis of the affects of 

various allocations, desired future conditions, 

and management actions on development of 

wildlife waters in the absence of a specific 

proposal would ignore the variability of project 

design, site conditions, and other factors that 

would affect approval of such a proposal. It is 
Chapter 5

778

inappropriate to attempt such an analysis in a 

landscape level document and in the absence of 

a specific proposal. Such an analysis would be 

conducted in an Environmental Analysis at the 

time of a specific proposal. The landscape level 

analysis in this EIS could not discern any 

impacts to management of wildlife water 

developments from Recreation management 

Zones (RMZs.)

Public Comments (RR-36): 

Comment: Based on our (ADBSS) 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 settings as potential threats to 

wildlife conservation activities and responsive 

wildlife dependent recreation. (Arizona Desert 

Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: 

#2146, letter #342)

Comment: Section 2.6.2.2.4.6 Page 203, 

column 1, 3rd paragraph Statement ...semiprimitive non-motorized Comment We are 

concerned about the lack of guidance on this and 

the potential impact it could have on wildlife 

management and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

(The State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1374, letter #401)

Public Concern (RR-37): 

Respondents are concerned that there is too 

much Front Country allocated and that the BLM 

should reduce the acreage of this allocation to 

better protect natural resources and decrease 

the likelihood of developed recreational 

amenities, especially in the monument.

Response (RR-37): 

We have reconsidered the Front/Back Country 

Zones in the Proposed Plan and the new sizes 

and boundaries can be found in document 

Section 2.6.1.5. Approximately 400 acres along 

the Agua Fria River have been changed from 

Front Country to Back Country status. 

Facilities designed to augment public recreation 

would generally be constructed in the Front 

Country Zone. However, no proposal suggests 

―... intense infrastructure...‖ In any case, 

whatever development would be proposed, sitespecific analysis would be conducted to assure 

compliance with the Proclamation for protection 

of monument resources.

Public Comments (RR-37): 

Comment: 2.Alternate E Page 159, 2.6.1.5 

Recreation Resources, We prefer Alternative D -

page 125 (2.5.1.5). We feel that BLM resources 

are insufficient to protect scientific, cultural, and 

biological values from intense and/or increased 

recreational use. Alternative D designates a 

larger Back Country RMZ (68,380 vs. 57,200 

acres) which safeguards more sensitive areas 

and better protects the Monument¦s values. 

(Black Canyon Trail Coalition, In, Black 

Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #1262, letter 

#280)

Comment: In addition, the BLM should 

decrease the amount of land designated as Front 

Country to reduce the development of 

recreational amenities. (Comment: #921, form 

#4)

Public Concern (RR-38): 

Several commenters believed that the passage 

zone through the national monument should be 

eliminated in the interior of the monument, 

specifically along roads that access Perry and 

Black Mesas, to reduce the likelihood of new 

developments and reduce impacts to monument 

resources. By designating High Use SCRMA, 

Passage RMZ, and front country RMZ, BLM 

may be increasing the likelihood of facilities. 

Response (RR-38): 

Facility development for the Agua Fria National 

Monument is projected to be minimal and would 

focus on areas near Interstate 17, such as Badger 

Springs Wash. The Front Country Zone also 

extends along Bloody Basin Road, which is the 

main road leading into and through the 

monument. In the Front Country Zone 

permanent or temporary amenities may exist to 
Chapter 5

779

protect the monument‘s objects and to provide 

for health and safety. For example, the front 

country zone includes access to Pueblo la Plata 

on Perry Mesa, which is proposed for 

interpretation, low-profile development, and

continued public visitation. As a general rule, 

the BLM will continue to encourage neighboring 

communities to provide needed services.

The amenities listed as acceptable for the 

passage zone include those that we believe will 

redirect, educate, or provide for health and 

safety issues as they may emerge. It is not the 

goal of the BLM to develop the monument by 

placing toilets in the passage zone, mainly 

because these will be difficult to service; but if 

there emerges a health and safety issue 

associated with human waste and all other nonintrusive options fail, then it gives BLM the 

flexibility to address the problem. A parking 

area can redirect vehicles into one area thereby 

concentrating use so spread onto the resources 

doesn‘t occur. This also, would only be initiated 

if there was a problem and all other nonintrusive options fail to produce the desired 

outcome, to protect the monument‘s objects. 

Public Comments (RR-38): 

Comment: Please recall that Planning Criteria 

#8 states that "due to the desire to maintain the 

existing natural and cultural landscapes of the 

Agua Fria National Monument, any visitor 

facilities will be located near the Monument 

boundary or in neighboring communities. 

Facilities may be located within the Monument, 

but they will be placed in an unobtrusive 

location near the Monument boundary" (page 

716). Alternative E appears to disregard this 

criteria by its designation of High Use SCRMA, 

Passage RMZ and Frontcountry RMZ in the 

interior of the monument. Each of these 

designations may allow for visitor facilities such 

as restrooms. (Sierra Club Southwest Regional 

Office, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1845, letter 

#340)

Comment: The Passage Resource Management 

Zone should be eliminated from roads that 

access Perry and Black Mesas. These areas do 

not require new developments such as 

parking/staging areas and toilets, as these will 

have negative impacts on monument resources. 

(Individual, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #927, letter 

#298)

Public Concern (RR-39): 

Commenters referencing Section 2.7.3.7 feel that 

this text on recreational shooting is more of a 

safety manual and should be replaced with a 

management action that ensures BLM will 

actively pursue partnerships to provide safe 

shooting areas.

Response: (RR-39): 

The section on recreational shooting does 

contain a significant safety component. It is 

designed to be clear on the character of sites that 

constitute safe shooting areas. With that 

information we can generate educational 

material for recreational shooters using public 

lands. In addition, it provides the basis for 

selecting safe shooting areas for future 

designation, or for selecting unsafe areas to 

close to that use as appropriate. It is also our 

intent to provide sufficient information, 

including appropriate legal references for law 

enforcement officers to issue citations as needed.

We are working with partner organizations to 

educate the public on safe shooting practices and 

to clean up trash associated with target shooting 

activities. We will review any proposals for new 

or expanded shooting facilities on a case-by-case 

basis for conformance with the land use plan. 

Public Comments (RR-39): 

Comment: 2.7.3.7. (pp. 256-258). The section 

on recreational target shooting seems to be a 

safety manual for any person that may choose to 

partake in this activity on the open desert, rather 

than a strategy for how BLM will manage this 

form of "wildcat" recreation. WORC suggests 

that BLM delete this discussion, and replace it 

with a management action that states BLM will 

actively seek partnerships with non-profit and 

government organizations and agencies to 

provide a safe area for recreational target 

shooting. Currently the Wickenburg Sportsmens 

Club (WSC) is operating on lands secured 

through an R&PP acquisition that may 
Chapter 5

780

eventually be crowded by other nearby 

recreational uses that are not compatible with 

recreational shooting. Since WSC recently 

partnered with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department to implement a youth program, the 

opportunity for this group to obtain a safer 

shooting area or to buffer the current site should 

be presented more specifically in this RMP. In 

addition, "desert shooting" probably will 

negatively influence the multiple use of the 

proposed SRMA as presented in the plan. 

(Wickenburg Outdoor Recreation Committee 

(WORC, Wickenburg, AZ - Comment: #1912, 

letter #398)

Public Concern (RR-40): 

Commenters support the Preferred Alternative’s 

ban on recreational shooting in the monument, 

which should also include specific language to 

ban paintball shooting. Additionally, there 

should be limits on recreational shooting 

throughout the Planning Areas to better protect 

natural and cultural resources, as well as 

provide for public safety.

Response (RR-40): 

The prohibition of recreational target shooting 

within the national monument has been carried 

forward to the Proposed Alternative. Paintball 

activities are prohibited in the monument in 

management common to all alternatives 

(document section 2.7.2.7) in the Draft 

RMPs/EIS and it has been carried forward to the 

Proposed RMPs/EIS.

Public Comments (RR-40): 

Comment: We recommend the BLM retain this 

prohibition on recreational target shooting 

throughout the Monument, which should also 

include specific language to ban paintball 

shooting. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2276, letter #343)

Comment: Another big concern is the out-ofcontrol target shooting around Table Mesa Road. 

On weekends, there are people shooting their 

weapons all around you from almost every 

canyon. You can stand in one place and hear 

gunfire coming from every direction. It's only a 

matter of time before someone is killed by 

'"legal" target practice. I would like to see the 

Table Mesa area become a "No Shooting Zone" 

Too congested with other users to neglect this 

safety issue. (AZ Rockrats, New River, AZ -

Comment: #513, letter #257)

5.4.9 WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

Public Concern (WC-1): 

Respondents feel a clear definition of ―manage 

for wilderness characteristics‖ is needed and 

have assigned the acronym ―MWC.‖

Response (WC-1): 

See Appendix I – Consideration of Wilderness 

Characteristics.

Public Comments (WC-1): 

Comment: At this point we (ADBSS) must 

apologize for assigning the acronym "MWC" to 

the land use allocation that proposes to maintain 

wilderness characteristics. Despite questionable 

direction to the contrary an acronym and a clear 

definitive term for this very controversial land 

use allocation is needed. Perhaps if it were more 

clearly described, more widely understood and

easier to identify it would be less controversial. 

We trust that the current generalized references 

are not by design and that there should be no 

issue with assigning an appropriate term and 

acronym to this land use allocation. Everything 

else in the world of federal government has an 

acronym and is extremely suspect that one has 

yet to be assigned here. We therefore have taken 

that liberty to be clearer in our comments by 

giving it the acronym "MWC'. (Arizona Desert 

Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: 

#2125, letter #342)

Public Concern (WC-2): 

Respondent feels The Desired Future Condition 

(as described in Section 2.6.2.2.2.6) which 

makes reference to a natural landscape being 

retained between the Hells Canyon Wilderness 

area and Lake Pleasant could affect private 

property rights in the future. 
Chapter 5

781

Response (WC-2): 

The subject lands are no longer under 

consideration as lands to be allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. There is no 

impact from management of wilderness 

character on Morgan City Wash or other routes 

and travel corridors in the area. The plan 

proposes to retain a natural landscape between 

the Hells Canyon Wilderness and Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park. This proposed Baldy Mountain 

RMZ complements the landscape and recreation 

opportunities in the area. The RMZ will provide 

high-quality non-motorized recreation and open 

space in a region otherwise mostly allocated to 

motorized and intensely managed recreation.

New rights-of-ways to access private property 

will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and 

sited/designed to limit adverse effects on natural 

and scenic resource values. BLM can not 

prohibit access to private lands, but does have 

the management prerogative as the land manager 

to stipulate that the most environmentally 

preferred route be selected, and where and how 

the right-of-way and supporting infrastructure is 

sited, designed, installed, or constructed. 

Public Comments (WC-2): 

Comment: Section 2.6.2.2.2.6, page185 

"Desired Future Condition" makes reference to a 

natural landscape being retained between the 

Lake and the Wilderness area. That could mean 

the loss of our private [in Spring Valley located 

between the Hell's Canyon Wilderness Area and 

the Lake Pleasant Park]property or the ability for 

our family to decide how the property will be 

used in the future. (Individual - Comment: 

#1490, letter #308)

Public Concern (WC-3): 

Respondents agree with the allocation to 

maintain wilderness characteristics that exists in 

Alternative E, but believe it is important that 

BLM explains the latitude to support multiple 

use objectives while managing for wilderness 

characteristics so as not to imply ―de facto 

wilderness.‖

Response (WC-3): 

The information contained in Appendix I make 

it clear BLM has the authority to inventory and 

manage for the resource conditions described as 

―wilderness characteristics.‖ The allocations to 

maintain wilderness characteristics in 

Alternative E represent those with the most 

outstanding characteristics with the least

management conflict. We have tried to make 

the desired future conditions and management 

actions clear so the difference in managing 

allocations to maintain wilderness characteristics 

and designated wilderness is also clear.

Public Comments (WC-3): 

Comment: Since the concept of managing areas 

for wilderness characteristics creates a 

perception that these lands will be de facto 

wilderness, the RAC believes it is important that 

BLM be able to explain to the public the latitude 

it has to support multiple use objectives while 

managing for wilderness characteristics. 

(Individual, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #476, 

letter #204)

Comment: I believe that the BLM can protect 

wilderness characteristics, while still allowing 

for a wide variety of uses. In the management of 

wilderness characteristics, the BLM proposes to 

consider the use of motorized and mechanical 

vehicles and designation of motorized routes as 

a possibility within areas located to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics. (Individual, 

Prescott, AZ - Comment: #375, letter #111)

Public Concern (WC-4): 

Several commenters feel the range of 

alternatives for lands managed to maintain 

wilderness characteristics is questionable.

Response (WC-4): 

The allocation to maintain wilderness 

characteristics was developed late in our 

planning effort. Since the Preferred Alternative 

was analyzed as a part of our range of 

alternatives in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS, it is 

acceptable (though perhaps not ideal) to include 

the allocation only in the Preferred Alternative. 

The decision was made to include the allocation 

in only that alternative.
Chapter 5

782

The current management or No Action 

Alternative (Alternative A) is also considered 

one of the analyzed alternatives, meaning that 

there is an alternative without allocations to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. The 

Preferred Alternative (Alternative E) can select a 

mix of allocations that best meet management 

objectives including selecting from provisions 

described in the No Action Alternative.

Public Comments (WC-4): 

Comment: We were also surprised that no 

alternative, other than the No Action 

Alternative, contained zero (0) MWC areas. We 

therefore must question whether the range of 

alternatives presented in the DRMP/DEIS is 

appropriate. One would have expected that one 

of the alternatives would have promoted a more 

conservation related land ethic and that the full 

range of alternatives would be less of an 

incremental movement towards preservation and 

the management of solitude, naturalness and 

primitive recreation. (Arizona Desert Bighorn 

Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2127, 

letter #342)

Comment: BLM retains the ability to value 

wilderness character and protect it. Instruction 

Memoranda (IMs) Nos. 2003-274 and 2003-275, 

which formalize BLM's policies concerning 

wilderness study and consideration of wilderness 

characteristics, contemplate that BLM can 

continue to inventory for and protect land "with 

wilderness characteristics," and also specifically 

reference ACEC designation as one options for 

doing so. In this guidance, wilderness 

characteristics are identified as naturalness, 

providing opportunities for solitude or providing 

opportunities for primitive or unconfined 

recreation. The IMs further provide for 

management that emphasizes "the protection of 

some or all of the wilderness characteristics as a 

priority," even if this means prioritizing 

wilderness over other multiple uses. (emphasis 

added). This guidance does not limit its 

application to lands suitable for designation of 

WSAs. For instance, the guidance does not 

include a requirement for the lands at issue to 

generally comprise 5000-acre parcels or a 

requirement that the lands have all of the 

potential wilderness characteristics in order to 

merit protection. Further, the guidance 

specifically contemplates management to protect 

"some or all" of the wilderness characteristics, 

so, for instance, the guidance would support 

managing an area to protect its naturalness as a 

priority over other multiple uses. Commitment 

to using this national guidance was reiterated in 

a February 12, 2004, letter to William Meadows, 

President of The Wilderness Society, from 

Assistant Secretaries of the Interior Rebecca 

Watson and Lynn Scarlett (copy attached for 

your reference), stating: "Wilderness 

characteristics can be protected by imposing a 

variety of designations and management 

prescriptions that are available to BLM as part 

of its resource management planning process." 

The guidance issued by BLM's Arizona State 

Office serves to elaborate upon this guidance by 

providing for identification of lands with 

wilderness characteristics and development of 

management prescriptions to protect and 

enhance these values (See IM No. AZ-2005-

007). We are pleased to see that the Draft RMP 

includes land use allocations for lands with 

wilderness characteristics in the preferred 

alternative, however we are concerned that none 

of the other alternatives contain this allocation. 

(The Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2258, letter #343)

Public Concern (WC-5): 

In the Management Common to All Areas 

allocated for wilderness characteristics, 

respondents recommend that BLM place 

emphasis on enhancing wilderness 

characteristics by working to close/restore 

motorized routes in these areas, instead of 

creating management guidelines that leave

routes open. Additionally, they would like BLM 

to follow the State Director’s Guidance and 

close these areas to mechanized use.

Response (WC-5): 

The allocation to maintain wilderness 

characteristics is not a wilderness designation or 

creation of Wilderness Study Areas. As such, 

management decisions within the allocations to 

maintain wilderness characteristics can be 

designed to maintain the current situation, even 
Chapter 5

783

for limited motorized access or for other uses 

that may be denied in designated wilderness or 

Wilderness Study Areas. For example, use of 

bicycles, wheeled game carriers, or hang gliders 

could be allowed if it is not in conflict with 

maintaining the desired future condition.

Public Comments (WC-5): 

Comment: In addition, we recommend that 

section 2.7.1.6. follow the BLM's State Director 

guidance in recognizing that the solitude and 

primitive/unconfined recreation definition 

provided for wilderness characteristics indicates 

that these activities are non-motorized and nonmechanical, which would prohibit the use of

mountain bikes. At the minimum, BLM should 

create desired future conditions that do not 

develop mountain biking opportunities in areas 

of wilderness characteristics where they did not 

occur previously. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2265, letter #343)

Comment: Remember, in the management 

common to all areas allocated for wilderness 

characteristics emphasis should be placed on 

enhancing wilderness characteristics by working 

to close and/or restore motorized routes in these 

areas instead of creating management guidelines 

that make leaving routes open in these areas. 

(Individual - Comment: #41, letter #52)

Public Concern (WC-6): 

Commenters objected to having areas managed 

for wilderness characteristics because it further 

limits public access especially for those with 

physical limitations. Respondents believe this to 

be an ambitious proposal to convert lands that 

are roaded and attract motorized recreation and 

that BLM should re-evaluate this to make sure it 

is manageable. Additionally, the loss of public 

access for high clearance and 4X4 vehicles due 

to the recommendations for wilderness 

characteristics and other Special Area 

Designations is a serious impact to public land 

users and to the resources. Not only will back 

country access and enjoyment be diminished, but 

the impacts to undesignated areas will be 

intensified due to higher concentrations of 

displaced users.

Response (WC-6): 

Allocations to maintain wilderness 

characteristics may contain some motorized 

access. There are several Recreation 

Management Zones where motorized recreation 

is the primary focus of management. In 

addition, dispersed motorized recreation on 

thousands of miles of designated route will still 

be available throughout the Planning Areas. 

There is no intent to concentrate motorized 

recreation in smaller areas, but rather to focus 

management for motorized recreation in some 

specific areas.

We did assessments of the field office area 

and determined that the characteristics of 

wilderness (as defined in the glossary) did 

exist in many places. The areas that are 

proposed for allocation to maintain 

wilderness characteristics have those 

characteristics in high quality, and we have 

determined that they are manageable under 

that allocation. These areas represent a 

small proportion of routes used for 

motorized access, and the impacts to 

motorized recreation would be small as 

described in document Sections 4-21.13.

Public Comments (WC-6): 

Comment: Within the Castle Hot Springs 

management unit, 6,550 acres are proposed to be 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. The draft RMP cites as a reason 

the need to "provide high-quality primitive 

recreation and solitude in a region otherwise 

allocated to motorized recreation" (see page 

185). It appears to be an ambitious proposal to 

convert lands that are roaded and attract 

motorized recreation to be suddenly managed 

for wilderness. I believe BLM should reevaluate this proposal and make sure it is 

manageable. Portions of this proposal with 

rugged terrain and no roads may be a better 

choice. Also, it is not clear if the Morgan City 

Wash Road would be affected by this proposal. 

This route provides critical access and should 

remain open. (Individual, Sierra Vista, AZ -

Comment: #1138, letter #286)
Chapter 5

784

Comment: The loss of public access especially 

for high clearance and 4X4 vehicles due to the 

recommendations for Wilderness and other 

Special Area Designations is a serious impact to 

public land users and to the resources. Not only 

will back country access and enjoyment by 

many be diminished, but the impacts to 

undesignated areas will be intensified due to 

higher concentrations of users due to 

displacement. (Individual, Cornville, AZ -

Comment: #1081, letter #160)

Public Concern (WC-7): 

Respondents are concerned about the potential 

conflict between the management actions for 

wilderness characteristics and the public access 

allowed in Morgan City Wash.

Response (WC-7): 

The subject lands are no longer under 

consideration for as lands to be allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. In fact, no 

allocation to maintain wilderness characteristics 

is proposed under Alternative E for public lands 

within the Castle Hot Springs Management Unit. 

There is no impact from management of 

wilderness character on Morgan City Wash or 

other routes and travel corridors in the area. We 

believe that potential access restrictions to this 

area will eventually lie more with the hands of 

private land owners curtailing use, than to 

management actions by BLM, the AGFD or the 

City of Peoria. 

As indicated in the Common to All section of 

Travel Management, routes and areas would be 

developed as needed for various purposes such 

as: protecting resources, ensuring visitor safety, 

satisfying local community needs, and 

improving recreation experiences, or increasing 

recreation opportunities. 

Public Comments (WC-7): 

Comment: Concerning Section 2.6-2.2.2.2 Page 

180, commenter stated ―The Morgan City Wash 

route (Map 2-90) has the potential to become 

and issue as it relates to the adjacent Hells 

Canyon Wilderness Characteristic designation. 

Although the EIS states on pg. 180, 3rd 

paragraph under Utility & Transportation 

Corridors, that BLM will pursue public access, 

the language under Management Actions for 

Wilderness Characteristics could prevent 

resolution. This particular road provides the only 

access for a significant area that is highly 

recreated by Department constituents. The area 

wildlife manager has raised concerns with this 

particular situation and the potential conflicts 

down the road. An additional review of this 

particular issue may be worth 

recommendations.‖ (The State of Az Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1365, letter #401)

Public Concern (WC-8): 

Respondent feels that designating much of the 

AFNM as ―possible wilderness‖ will go a long 

way in protecting archeological resources in the 

monument and will fulfill the Monument 

Proclamation.

Response (WC-8): 

Only Congress can establish a Federal 

wilderness area. BLM is proposing a variety of

land use allocations to ensure the long-term 

preservation or conservation of monument 

objects and resources. Citizens and 

organizations can offer wilderness area 

proposals to Congress for lands where they 

believe wilderness designation is appropriate. 

BLM does not have the authority to address, 

propose or bring forward wilderness area 

proposals or designation for monument lands.

Public Comments (WC-8): 

Comment: It goes without saying that proposal 

and the eventual designation of as much of the 

Monument as possible as wilderness will go a 

long way in protecting the archeological 

resource in the Monument and at the same time 

fulfill the Monument proclamation. (Individual -

Comment: #774, letter #46)

Public Concern (WC-9):

Respondents feel adding the following statement 

to the document would reinforce a mutual 

commitment to cooperate and collaborate in the 

management of fish and wildlife and their 

habitats, for all management prescriptions, and 
Chapter 5

785

for all land designations and allocations:―Land 

use allocations such as those to manage for 

wilderness characteristics or primitive 

recreation will not adversely impact the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department’s ability to meet 

their Trust Responsibilities for managing 

wildlife, nor prohibit current or future proposed 

wildlife management activities on lands 

administered by BLM in Arizona. This RMP 

will reflect and support the spirit and intent of 

the Statewide Memorandum of Understanding 

between BLM and AG&FD.‖ 

Response(WC-9):

Clarification of the AGFD/BLM relationship

and roles and responsibilities was added to the 

Interrelationships section of Chapter 2 in the 

Proposed Plan/FEIS. This Chapter 2 addition 

should satisfy comment concerns about the RMP 

supporting the spirit and intent of the Statewide 

MOU. 

With regard to comment concerns that 

allocations and management prescriptions do not 

adversely impact AGFD‘s wildlife management 

activities, the suggested statement mixes AGFD 

roles and responsibilities with standard NEPA 

requirements for evaluation of site-specific 

proposals in light of plan conformance and other 

legal requirements. The Desired Future 

Conditions for allocations to maintain 

wilderness characteristics include language that 

conveys the importance of wildlife and wildlife 

management as a component of managing areas 

to maintain wilderness characteristics. Because 

wildlife and wildlife management are considered 

important components of naturalness, AGFD 

actions to achieve those related DFCs could be 

implemented. However, site-specific NEPA 

analysis may identify mitigations required to 

ensure conformance with the rest of the land use 

plan and other laws and regulations. No 

guarantee can be made at the land use plan level 

that implementation-level projects can be carried 

out entirely as proposed. Therefore, while 

AGFD‘s responsibility ―to meet their Trust 

Responsibilities for managing wildlife‖ is not 

usurped, their ―ability to meet their Trust 

Responsibilities for managing wildlife‖ would 

continue to undergo standard NEPA process 

with any necessary mitigation. The NEPA 

process is not considered the equivalent of 

―adversely impacting ... AGFD‘s ability to meet 

their...responsibilities ...‖ The inclusion of the 

statements in the Interrelationships section and 

the DFCs already address the comment 

concerns.

Public Comments (WC-9):

Comment: Also on a statewide level, the 

Department [AZGFD] is concerned about the 

unavoidable complexity of an RMP that must 

meet objectives to manage for multiple 

resources and uses within the field office 

planning area for up to 20 years. Although the 

plan should ensure the resolution of any conflict 

within the preferred alternative, the complex 

nature of managing multiple resources in concert 

can create perceived or real conflicts between 

Desired Future Conditions or management 

prescriptions for different uses, resources, or 

user groups. 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. 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). This MOU, when 

finalized, will provide context to better enable 

our respective agencies to work in partnership 

and to make decisions in a consistent manner 

statewide. Additionally, the MOU will provide 

direction on the management of fish and 

wildlife, and associated habitats, based on the 

resource decisions housed within the RMP. 

However, 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, and 

for all land designations/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 this RMP. The Arizona 

Game and Fish Department's ability to manage 

wildlife on lands administered by BLM in 
Chapter 5

786

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 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." (The State of Az 

Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1356, letter #401)

Comment: The YVRGC respectfully request 

the following language be in the RMP to clarify 

AGFD's role and responsibility for managing 

wildlife and BLM's intent to support AGFD in 

accomplishing their mission and goals: "Land 

Use allocations and management prescriptions 

such as those to manage for wilderness 

characteristics or primitive recreation will not 

adversely impact the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department's ability to meet their Trust 

Responsibilities for managing wildlife, nor 

prohibit current or future proposed wildlife 

management activities on lands administered by 

BLM in Arizona. This RMP will reflect and 

support the spirit and intent of the Statewide 

Memorandum of Understanding between BLM 

and AGFD." (Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club, 

Inc, Yuma, AZ - Comment: #1069, letter #163)

Public Concern (WC-10): 

Respondents, including the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, cannot support the large 

areas proposed for non-motorized primitive 

recreation and solitude. They ask what is meant 

by ensuring solitude, how is this defined, and 

how will it be implemented.

Response (WC-10): 

In areas managed to maintain wilderness 

character, there will be a management emphasis 

to maintain or conserve current scenic attributes 

and natural conditions, and to maintain 

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. 

At this juncture there is no emphasis to place 

severe recreation and use restrictions on wildlife 

management activities. 

The subject wilderness character areas already 

have solitude per the definition of an area where 

―the sights, sounds and evidence of other people 

are rare and infrequent‖. There is no indication 

that user or visitor numbers to the wilderness 

areas would be restricted. This has never 

happened, even in designated Phoenix District 

wilderness areas.

Solitude can be maintained by not building 

trails, by not maintaining routes, by offering 

visitors alternative areas to recreate, or by 

dispersing recreation attractions. And solitude 

does not have to be maintained all the time in all 

areas and in all landscapes. Solitude waxes and 

wanes depending on the landscape, the 

sensitivity of the visitor, the time of day and 

year, and many other factors.

We anticipate few other management 

prescriptions would be required to maintain 

solitude. This finding is based on managing 

wilderness in the Phoenix District for 16 years. 

Solitude levels remain good to outstanding

throughout our designated Wilderness areas with 

few to no management actions by BLM. In fact, 

we have never implemented a recreation use 

restriction in this office due to solitude 

conditions being degraded or adversely affected. 

We believe these circumstances will probably be 

repeated in areas managed to maintain 
Chapter 5

787

wilderness characteristics. If management 

conditions changed on the ground and 

wilderness values were harmed or lost, then sitespecific planning would be implemented to 

resolve the issue.

BLM considers wildlife management and 

wildlife-related recreation activities and 

opportunities will continue much as they are 

today, but only if habitat is effectively managed 

and maintained. Quality hunting and wildlife 

viewing opportunities will be conserved if BLM, 

the AGFD, and citizen volunteers are successful 

land use and recreation managers. Successful 

management will ensure that a semblance of 

functioning and unfragmented habitat for game 

and non-game animals be conserved and 

sustained in light of Arizona‘s unprecedented 

urban and rural growth, and associated 

recreation demands, in the Phoenix District‘s 

public lands.

Public Comments (WC-10): 

Comment: Concerning Section 2.6.2.2.4.6 Page 

202, column 2 last paragraph, commenter states, 

―Ensure...solitude. What is meant by ensuring 

solitude‖ How is this defined and how will it be 

implemented‖ This could put severe recreational 

restrictions on large areas of public lands. The 

Department believes the document should state 

there will be opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation in these areas. (The State of 

Az Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1372, letter #401)

Comment: AGFD-We believe that choosing to 

manage for Wilderness Characteristics and 

recreation management prescriptions that place 

an emphasis or priority on managing for 

solitude, primitive non-motorized, or semiprimitive non-motorized recreation will place 

unnecessary restrictions on wildlife 

management, hunting, motorized access, and 

wildlife-related recreation. It is extremely 

important to our organization that wildlife 

management and wildlife-related recreation 

continue essentially as it does today. (Yuma 

Valley Rod and Gun Club, Inc, Yuma, AZ -

Comment: #1068, letter #163)

Public Concern (WC-11): 

Respondents want the RMP to clearly identify 

―... the full compliment of wildlife management 

and conservation activities as being a priority 

and allowable use for any MWC (sic) allocation 

or ROS/VRM setting.‖ They believe that this 

intent needs to be written in explicit language to 

avert future conflict because past experience has 

shown that wilderness preservation and the 

preservation mindset it manifests has become a 

tool to impede or delay necessary and beneficial 

wildlife management and conservation activities.

Response (WC-11): 

The RMPs contains language that emphasizes 

wildlife management as a priority in areas 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

as well as other allocations. Due to the potential 

for site-specific conflicts that cannot be analyzed 

in a document of this scale, future proposals, 

including wildlife management and conservation 

activities, would need site-specific analysis and 

appropriate mitigation before they could be 

approved.

Public Comments (WC-11): 

Comment: At a minimum we (ADBSS) would 

require that the RMP clearly identifies the full 

compliment of wildlife management and 

conservation activities as being a priority and 

allowable use for any MWC allocation or 

ROS/VRM setting. Based on our past experience 

this intent needs to be written in crystal clear 

language to avert future conflict and controversy 

within the RMP and we will be looking for it to 

be contained in the final RMP document. 

(Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, 

AZ - Comment: #2123, letter #342)

Comment: Our organization (ADBSS) has 

decades of experience with wilderness and the 

full compliment of widely varied wilderness 

management practices. This experience has 

shown that wilderness has done more harm than 

good to Arizona's wildlife populations and the 

associated restrictions (perceived and real) have 

become an unbearable obstacle to active wildlife 

management and conservation activities; 

activities that have been widely successful 

during the previous century and produced the 
Chapter 5

788

abundant wildlife resources that we enjoy today. 

Current wilderness preservation in any form and 

the preservation mind set it manifests has 

unfortunately become a tool, used by 

obstructionists, to impede, delay, obstruct and 

otherwise compromise necessary and beneficial 

wildlife management and conservation activities 

throughout this state to advance a contrary and 

passive management ideal. (Arizona Desert 

Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: 

#2121, letter #342)

Public Concern (WC-12): 

Respondents are concerned about the 

allocations for wilderness characteristics, and 

especially that ―public perception would limit 

resource utilization by BLM.‖

Response (WC-12): 

Public perception concerning any BLM 

management has the potential to impact the 

timeliness of BLM actions. Allocations for 

wilderness characteristics might limit resource 

utilization that is incompatible with meeting our 

Desired Future Conditions. It is BLM‘s opinion 

that the limitations would not result in major 

economic or environmental impacts. If 

changing conditions in the future require we 

reconsider our decisions, we can do so in a plan 

amendment process.

Public Comments (WC-12): 

Comment: It appears that Alternative E 

provides for both public use and natural resource 

development opportunities in specific 

Management Areas; however, while ARPA 

agrees with your intentions to maintain the 

wilderness characteristics that currently exist in 

the Preferred Alternative E, we are concerned 

public perception would limit resource 

utilization by BLM. How will this issue be 

addressed. (Arizona Rock Products Association, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1472, letter #355)

Public Concern (WC-13): 

Respondents feel BLM should add more 

explanation of how the process described in 

Section 3.9 was applied. BLM should also 

describe the results of this process for specific 

areas, including all areas managed to maintain 

wilderness characteristics. In particular, an 

area should be considered as possessing 

wilderness character if it includes one, two, or 

all three of the criteria of naturalness, solitude, 

and primitive and unconfined recreation.

Response (WC-13):

The detailed inventory information is in the 

Administrative Record and available for public 

review. The Affected Environment Section of 

the document needs to contain enough 

information for the public to make their 

assessment of impacts. The details of the 

inventory do not supplement that information 

and would be superfluous in the Affected 

Environment chapter of the document. 

The process we used to make decisions 

concerning allocating areas with wilderness 

characteristics was essentially the same as the 

process we use for any RMP decision. The steps 

we followed were:

1. Conduct field assessments of 

wilderness characteristics, focusing on 

areas inventoried in the past and on 

areas identified by the public as having 

those characteristics.

2. Produce maps of areas with wilderness 

character.

3. Compare areas with wilderness 

characteristics with maps of other 

resource values and objectives.

4. Assess the manageability of wilderness 

characteristic in each area in the context 

of other resource demands and 

objectives and outside pressures.

5. Publish draft plan with 5 alternatives.

6. Review public comment and make 

adjustments accordingly.

Public Comments (WC-13):

Comment: The general process is consistent 

with FLPMA's direction that BLM inventory for 

the many values of the public lands and consider 

ways to protect them (i.e., not all uses are 

appropriate in all places) in the RMP. 43 U.S.C. 

1711, 1712. In addition, it is consistent with the 

applicable BLM guidance in providing for 

inventory and protection of wilderness 

characteristics, and considering the lands 
Chapter 5

789

included in the wilderness proposals submitted 

by the Arizona Wilderness Coalition 

(consideration of citizen wilderness proposals is 

specifically mentioned in the national guidance, 

as well). We also appreciate the consideration of 

all of the following as wilderness characteristics: 

Naturalness, Solitude, and Primitive and 

unconfined recreation. However, the Draft RMP 

does not provide adequate detail on how the 

BLM applied the wilderness characteristics 

discussion in section 3.9. Draft RMP at 408. It is 

confusing to try to determine which citizenproposed areas were validated by BLM in their 

process of following Instruction Memorandum 

Nos. 2003-274, 2003-275, and AZ-2005-007. It 

does appear that all of the areas in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala region proposed by 

citizens were at a minimum displayed on Map 3-

12, but no areas were displayed for the Agua 

Fria National Monument. BLM staff have 

indicated that this was an oversight and will be 

corrected in the Final RMP/EIS. Section 3.9 also 

makes no mention of the AWC proposal for the 

Agua Fria NM submitted during the scoping 

process and identified on the BLM website as 

scoping comments received. In addition, the 

BLM states that the Round Mountain unit was 

found to posses wilderness characteristics, but 

did not receive any protection in the preferred 

alternative and no rationale was provided for 

dropping this unit. The same is true for the 

Harquahala Mountains units. Recommendation: 

The BLM should add more explanation of how 

the process described in Section 3.9 was applied. 

BLM should also describe the results of this 

process for specific areas, including all of the 

AWC-proposed areas. In particular, in 

accordance with the guidance cited above, an 

area should be considered as possessing 

wilderness character if it includes one, two, or 

all three of the criteria of naturalness, solitude, 

and primitive and unconfined recreation. (The 

Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2259, letter #343)

Public Concern (WC-14): 

Several comments suggested no wilderness 

prescriptions be applied outside designated 

Wilderness Areas and that no areas, except 

around the Harquahala Mountains, be allocated 

to maintain wilderness characteristics (as 

proposed in Alternative B).

Response (WC-14): 

Many actions taken within designated 

wilderness areas are designed to manage 

resources and resource conditions that exist 

outside designated wilderness. That is 

especially true of management actions designed 

to maintain particular recreation settings. The 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) allows BLM to manage recreation on 

its lands without limiting what modes of 

recreation might be acceptable. Where BLM 

determines management to maintain or enhance 

recreation experiences that are somewhat similar 

to those within a designated wilderness, some 

prescriptions may also be similar. The Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act sections 102 

(8), 103 (c), 202 (c) all give BLM the authority 

to plan for and manage public lands, including 

modes of recreation on those lands. Nothing in 

FLPMA limits or exempts any kind, form, or 

mode of recreation from our management 

responsibility.

Public Comments (WC-14): 

Comment: As we have expressed in other 

ongoing statewide BLM planning efforts and 

want to reiterate here, the ADBSS is 

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. (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, 

Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2120, letter #342)

Comment: Alternative E is the preferable 

alternative with the exception of the Wilderness 

designations. For this resource management 

option, Alternative B should the preferred 

alternative. (Individual, Cornville, AZ -

Comment: #1086, letter #160)

Public Concern (WC-15): 

Commenters noted that areas allocated to 

maintain wilderness characteristics overlap 
Chapter 5

790

areas analyzed and addressed in two BLM 

reports from 1980, which found that these areas 

did not contain sufficient wilderness values or 

did not meet the standards for inclusion as 

Wilderness Study Areas. In S ection 2.7.1.6, the 

Desired Future Condition of these areas 

emphasizes the naturalness and outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive 

unconfined recreation. Respondents want to 

know how these conditions are present now 

when they were not present in 1980.

Response (WC-15): 

When examining public lands for the presence 

of wilderness characteristics, BLM conducts 

ground assessments and reviews existing land 

use and wilderness inventory data. BLM 

examined the 1980 wilderness inventory 

findings for units 2-107 (Belmont Hills North), 

2-108 (Belmont Hills), 2-118 (Baldy Mountain), 

2-103 (Black Butte), and 2-85 (Williams Mesa).

The summaries provided by the various 

respondent‘s comments, accurately reflect the 

1979 initial or 1980 intensive wilderness 

inventory reports or findings for units 2-107, 2-

108 and 2-118, 2-103 and 2-85. These 

inventories and associated reports were 

conducted under Section 603 of FLPMA. 

BLM may consider new information on 

wilderness characteristics when preparing land 

use plans. Publicly submitted wilderness 

character proposals represent a land use 

planning allocation BLM needs to examine. The 

BLM must determine if our existing wilderness 

inventories are still valid and if public 

wilderness proposals contain new information or 

indicate changed circumstances on the ground.

BLM takes any new information provided by the 

public, along with the original inventory 

findings, and conducts a ground assessment of 

the subject landscape. BLM must determine if 

wilderness characteristics are reasonably present 

and of sufficient value (condition, uniqueness, 

relevance, importance), need (trend, risk) and 

are practical to manage. These procedures are 

fully described in Instruction Memorandum No. 

2003-275 – Change 1 and Appendix I: 

Consideration of Wilderness Characteristics.

Two questions are asked during the ground 

assessment: 

1. Is the current wilderness inventory valid? 

2. If not valid, does this new information suggest 

substantive changes to the landscape and in 

resource conditions since the wilderness 

inventory was completed in 1980?

Belmont Hills North Unit 2-107 and Belmont 

Hills Unit 2-108: These units were re-examined 

in 2002 and 2003. In 1980, BLM proposed 

these ―units be dropped from further wilderness 

consideration because of the unnatural effects of 

man and the lack of outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or primitive recreation.‖

The Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal was 

under construction during the 1979-1980 

wilderness inventories. The initial CAP 

construction activities presented a formidable 

impact on the area‘s— and the regions— natural 

conditions, natural quiet, scenery, solitude and 

primitive recreation opportunities. The CAP 

construction effort was described in the subject 

inventory reports as a major off-site impact and 

influenced the inventory crew‘s opinion as to the 

quality of the two area‘s wilderness values. 

In 2002 and 2003, the field review determined 

that the once-predominate construction and 

visual scars of the CAP were now healed. 

Furthermore, the CAP now ―blends in‖ with the 

rest of the off-site infrastructure (roads, houses, 

nuclear plant, powerlines, subdivisions) east and 

south of the Belmont Mountains. The CAP is no 

longer the adjacent and significant ―sights and 

sounds‖ of human influence it was in 1980, due 

to the aforementioned reclamation of the scars 

and the additional and newer off-site human 

impacts now south and east of the canal area.

The CAP had other long-term impacts on the 

Belmont Mountains too, some beneficial to 

natural, scenic, and wilderness characteristics. 

The CAP cut off many vehicle travel routes that 

previously entered the 2-107 and 2-108 units 

from the south. Motorized travel has little 
Chapter 5

791

impacted, and perhaps has even less impact on 

the area than documented in 1980, due to the 

lack of route crossings over the CAP. The canal 

had a ―moat-like‖ effect and restricted access.

Mining documented in 1980 has not been active, 

especially in the south part of unit 2-108, and 

north of the CAP. Access roads have not been 

maintained or used, grazing facilities have not 

been maintained or were cut or eliminated by the 

CAP. Other ground disturbances have been 

minimal to none. Natural reclamation has 

restored or overgrown the evidence of many 

mining and development scars. 

The area appears more natural today than it did 

in 1980 due to these factors. These 

circumstances and factors described above have 

been confirmed by on-the-ground field 

inspections and assessments.

Natural reclamation has restored or overgrown 

the evidence of the mining, vehicle travel and 

development scars. The improvement in Units 2-

107 and 2-108 natural condition and the 

restoration and reclamation of impacts over 27 

years all have contributed to the area‘s more 

natural and remote condition. The area appears 

more natural today than it did in 1980 due to 

these factors. Solitude and primitive recreation 

opportunities are now considered good to 

outstanding due to less evidence of people and 

the associated influence of human activities. 

These opportunities are outstanding when 

considered in a regional context. 

Accordingly, we determined that wilderness 

characteristics are reasonably present and are 

and of sufficient value and need. The 

characteristics are unique due to their closeness 

to Buckeye and large master planned 

communities with up to a million new residents 

over the next 23 years. The area‘s natural 

character is critical to open-space maintenance 

and the lands are valuable for sustaining desert 

big horn sheep and desert tortoise habitat. The 

described wilderness characteristic values and 

associated scenery, habitat, and plant life would 

be at risk if not protected from intense levels of 

motorized and non-motorized land use and 

inappropriate land use or authorizations.

Finally, the lands are manageable and practical 

to administer under an allocation to manage for 

the maintenance of wilderness character. The 

trend and risk of intensive motorized use, 

adjoining large scale developments, and 

urbanization point towards a wilderness 

characteristic allocation as the best land use 

allocation for this area; one that will maintain 

important resource and associated open space 

and recreation values. 

Maintenance of the area‘s natural conditions will 

be facilitated by the CAP canal and vehicles 

limited to existing— and eventually 

designated— OHV route networks. 

Unit 2-118 Baldy Mountain: We have reviewed 

our findings for Unit 2-118 Baldy Mountain. 

We have determined that the original wilderness 

inventory findings are essentially correct and 

will drop the area from consideration in 

Alternative E for management to maintain 

wilderness characteristics. The area is more 

natural than documented in 1980, but other 

wilderness opportunities are only marginal.

Unit 2-103 (Black Butte): We have also 

reviewed submitted and new field information 

on Unit 2-103 (Black Butte). Black Butte was 

determined to be natural in 1980, and that 

condition persists to this day. In fact some of 

the vehicle routes documented in 1980 have 

reclaimed due to weathering and plant overgrowth. The core land areas surrounding Black 

Butte proper are highly natural with little 

evidence of human activity. 

Our field assessments in 2003 determined that 

the 1980 inventory crew was overly stringent in 

their inventory findings that outstanding solitude 

and primitive recreation opportunities did not 

exist in sufficient quality and quantity to be 

considered outstanding. Perhaps the 1980 field 

inventory documented more human activity with 

better motorized access routes, active mining 

projects, and ongoing intensive range 

management and grazing operations; thus their 

initial 1979/1980 conclusions were conceivably 

justified. 
Chapter 5

792

The area, we believe, now has some wilderness

character, especially when considering the area‘s 

enhanced natural condition, its remoteness, the 

difficulty of access from the west, north and 

northeastern areas, its abundant levels of natural 

quiet, unencumbered scenic vistas, and Black 

Butte‘s proximity (30-45 minutes to planned 

urban populations and communities). There are 

outstanding opportunities for cultural and 

geologic sightseeing, cross-country hiking, and 

non-technical climbing.

Unit 2-85 Williams Mesa: This area was 

dropped from wilderness study consideration in 

1979 since no area larger than 5,000 acres was 

determined to be roadless or natural in 

condition. Most of unit 2-85 consisted of 

Williams Mesa and lands to the west and south. 

Since 1980, BLM acquired substantial land 

ownership around the Slate Creek area in the 

northeast part of Unit 2-85. This new public 

land was natural and added to natural lands 

already present surrounding Slate Creek. The 

original and acquired public lands around Slate 

Creek were determined to have wilderness 

character based on changed land ownership 

patterns and circumstances. Taken together, this 

assemblage of public lands possess naturalness 

along with solitude and primitive recreation 

opportunities. 

Public Comments (WC-15): 

Comment: Having been involved in wilderness 

review for decades the ADBSS additionally 

recalls that the statewide Wilderness Review and 

Intensive Inventory performed by BLM in 1980 

previously studied most of the areas now 

proposed for an MWC allocation and found that 

they should be "dropped from further wilderness 

consideration" because "a natural area could not 

be delineated" or that due to the "unnatural 

character of the unit it could not be considered 

outstanding" or that the "opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined recreation were not 

outstanding". We (ADBSS) therefore must ask 

that the final RMP specifically address these 

discrepancies from the 1980 inventory and in 

particular those which exist in previous Units 2-

100, 2-107 and 2-108 (Hummingbird Springs 

and Belmont Hills) in the new Harquahala 

management area, Unit 2-118 (Cedar Basin) in 

the new Castle Hot Springs area and Unit 2-85 

in the Black Canyon management area. From 

our perspective these areas were previously 

reviewed for wilderness qualities and 

subsequently released when none were found. 

The DRMP does not adequately present what 

new information is now available in regards to 

these areas nor does it explain how these areas 

have become, over time, more natural and 

primitive. (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2129, letter 

#342)

Comment: The following are specific comments 

to AFNMBH RMP. The main issue I will 

discuss is in regards to Managing for Wilderness 

Characteristics (MWC) Areas. In 1980, BLM 

published two reports... 1 - Wilderness Review, 

Intensive Inventory of Public Lands 

Administered by Bureau of Land Management, 

Proposal Report (May 1980) 2 - Wilderness 

Review, Intensive Inventory of Public Lands 

Administered by Bureau of Land Management, 

Decision Report (Nov 1980) These two 

documents clearly inventoried lands within 

Arizona for the following characteristics. 1 -

Naturalness 2 - Outstanding opportunities for 

solitude 3 - Opportunities for primitive or 

unconfined types of recreation. The following 

are direct quotes from the Decision Report

published in 1980 regarding areas that were 

inventoried in the AFNMBH Management Area 

and the new proposed MWC areas in the draft 

RMP. The areas from the report overlap the 

areas proposed for MWC by BLM. I urge BLM 

managers to research my findings and check to 

ensure that all of the statements provided are in 

fact valid. The issue must be addressed by BLM 

to avoid future possible lawsuits and ensure that 

there is consistency between published reports, 

inventories, etc on behalf of the BLM managers 

of today, yesterday and tomorrow. Harquahala 

Management Unit Decision Report #2-107 BLM 

Findings "We propose that the unit be dropped 

from further wilderness consideration because of 

the unnatural effects of man and the lack of 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive recreation." Decision Report #2-108 

BLM Findings "We propose that the unit be 
Chapter 5

793

dropped from further wilderness consideration 

because there are no outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or primitive or unconfined 

recreation." BLM response when challenged 

"After careful review we determined that the 

unit did not provide outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type 

of recreation." AFNMBH RMP 2.6.2.2.4.6 -

Desired Future Conditions "...Retain natural 

landscapes. Ensure high-quality natural 

landscapes, solitude and outstanding primitive 

recreation opportunities in a remote setting..." 

Obviously in 1980 if BLM found that the areas 

were unnatural, without outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, 

then these conditions would not exist today. 

BLM must prove that the land was improved in 

some way so as to now have substantial qualities 

for wilderness characteristics were previously 

they were not. Castle Hot Springs Management 

Unit Decision Report #2-118 BLM Findings 

"We propose that this unit be eliminated from 

further wilderness consideration. Several 

opportunities exist for primitive recreation, but 

these activities are hindered by the unnatural 

character of the unit to the point where they 

cannot be considered outstanding." AFNMBH 

RMP 2.6.2.2.2.6 - Desired Future Conditions "A 

natural landscape retained between..." Again, 

how can there be unnatural character in 1980, 

but today BLM wants to retain the natural 

landscape. How did this area get to be natural 

again, when previously it was not of substantial 

value. Common to Both Units AGNMBH RMP 

2.7.1.6 - Desired Future Conditions "Lands 

allocated to manage or enhance wilderness 

characteristic contain few human intrusions with 

primitive and natural landscape settings, 

providing self-reliant and self-directed visitor 

experiences..." "Lands and resources within 

these areas exhibit a high degree of naturalness. 

These areas are affected mainly by the forces of 

nature, and the imprint of human activity is 

substantially unnoticeable..." "Outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive 

unconfined recreation may be present..." Again, 

the conditions common to all MWC areas refer 

to the naturalness and outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation. 

How can these characteristics be present when 

BLM managers who inventoried the land in 

1980 found them not to be. BLM cannot publish 

reports, inventories, plans, etc. that contradict 

each-other. BLM cannot have it BOTH WAYS, 

choosing which way they want to characterize 

land when it works to serve the end goal the 

BLM is interested in with whatever document or 

plan that is being produced at that period in 

time. (Individual, Yuma, Arizona - Comment: 

#1143, letter #382)

Public Concern (WC-16): 

Commenters disagree with the analysis that the 

areas in the Castle Hot Springs and Black 

Canyon MUs have wilderness characteristics, 

given that many of these areas currently have 

roads. They are specifically opposed to the 

allocation to maintain wilderness characteristics 

west of Lake Pleasant and around Hummingbird 

Springs and Bighorn Mountains Wilderness 

Area because this allocation may prohibit uses, 

such as mineral development.

Response (WC-16):

Areas allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to mineral sales 

if they preclude achieving the Desired Future 

Conditions, although the allocation to maintain 

wilderness characteristics doesn‘t preclude 

prospecting or development of locatable or 

leasable minerals. Reclamation in these areas 

may be designed to better mimic the natural 

landscape than in other places. The ―roads‖ and 

bulldozer scrapes described were done in the 

1950s and the majority of them are reclaimed 

and unusable for motorized travel. 

The potential of the area as a source for perlite 

did not come up during planning, though data 

has since been received by BLM from ADMMR 

showing an area of perlite located in T6N, R1W 

and T7N, R1W. Should further investigation 

determine a quality and quantity of perlite 

suitable for development, it would be available 

for extraction under the provisions of the 3809 

Regulations. Because of the landscape character 

within the allocation, BLM may establish 

reclamation standards that would leave a 

substantially natural looking site when the 

mineral is mined out and/or when mining 

activity ceases.
Chapter 5

794

The wilderness character areas in the Castle Hot 

Springs and Black Canyon area were carefully 

examined. The Black Canyon Corridor parcels 

clearly have wilderness characteristics. 

We have reviewed our findings for the Baldy 

Mountain area in the Castle Hot Springs 

Management Unit. Our reassessment of the 

1980 inventory found the area has changed and 

now contains wilderness characteristics. Upon 

further reviewing the area since the public 

comment period, we have determined the 

characteristics are of marginal quality and poor 

manageability, potentially conflicting with other 

resource objectives such as trail development, 

wild burro herd management and rights-of-way 

for community growth. Therefore, we have

dropped the area from an allocation to maintain 

wilderness characteristics and have reallocated it 

as the Baldy Mountain Recreation Management 

Zone (RMZ). 

The Baldy Mountain RMZ will still emphasize 

non-motorized recreation opportunities, but the 

allocation is less restrictive to motorized uses 

and resource utilization than an allocation to 

maintain wilderness characteristics.

See document Section 2.6.2.2.2.5 for a 

description of the management decisions for this 

RMZ.

Public Comments (WC-16):

Comment: I am against the creation of 

Wilderness Characteristic' areas surrounding the 

Hummingbird Springs and Big Horn Mountains 

Wilderness in Alternative E (Map 2-89) or new 

ACECs in this area. As can be seen in 

Bradshaw-Harquahala DRMP/DEIS maps, this 

area is highly mineralized (Maps 3-15 and 3-19) 

and contains abundant roads (Map 3-24). 

(Individual, Apache Junction, AZ - Comment: 

#1890, letter #391)

Comment: The alleged characteristics that were 

inventoried to make these new proposed areas 

eligible is very questionable and is far reaching 

at best. Most or these areas do not effectively 

meet the criteria for designation, especially those 

areas in the Hells Canyon-Lake Pleasant area 

(2.6.2.2.2.6) and those in the Black Canyon City 

area (2.6.2.2.1.6). Wilderness is something very 

special and these designations only amount to 

extension of ones' imagination and wishful 

thinking. They do not possess the outstanding 

characteristics that are required by law. 

Additionally, those areas that have multiple 

cherry stems and have existing roads that must 

be closed for the purpose of at some time 

making it eligible for Wilderness is only 

stretching an interpretation of what wilderness 

characteristics really are. The basic requirements 

for Wilderness do not exist in these areas. 

(Verde Valley 4 Wheelers, Cottonwood, AZ -

Comment: #1952, letter #400)

Public Concern (WC-17): 

Respondents take exception to use of the word 

―enhance‖ in the description of the allocation to 

maintain wilderness characteristics because 

they feel it embellishes an already troubling land 

allocation and that future wildlife conservation 

activities will suffer. Additionally, the word 

"enhance" is not contained in the federal 

guidance provided in the Instructional 

Memorandum 2003-275, Change 1 and this 

should be the sole guidance for the 

consideration of wilderness characteristics. 

They challenge the embellished guidance as it is 

not consistent with BLM policy and has not 

undergone public review.

Response (WC-17): 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act

allows ―enhancement‖ of any resource 

conditions managed by the agency. It is 

common and accepted practice that BLM 

enhance resources we manage. We contribute to 

construction of range improvements to enhance 

range forage and livestock management. We 

build trails, trailheads, parking areas, staging 

areas, and provide other amenities to enhance 

recreational opportunities and experiences. We 

participate in construction of wildlife waters, 

modify livestock fences, and control competing 

uses to enhance wildlife habitat. If we are 

managing an area for wilderness characteristics 

and it is appropriate and not in conflict with 

other management priorities, it is legal and 

consistent with normal management practices to 
Chapter 5

795

enhance those characteristics. However, due to 

the concern regarding the word ―enhance‖ the 

Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement refers to the 

allocation as simply an allocation to maintain 

wilderness characteristics.

Public Comments (WC-17): 

Comment: We (ADBSS) noted throughout the 

document that the verb "enhance" has been 

added to the descriptive title for the MWC land 

allocation. It now reads Manage to Maintain and 

Enhance Wilderness Characteristics. Errantly 

embellishing this already troubling land 

allocation by adding the word "enhance" fuels 

our concern that this management prescription 

will be used to advance a wilderness 

management regime to these lands and that 

future wildlife conservation activities will suffer. 

It is one thing to protect wilderness 

characteristics but quite another to enhance these 

characteristics. We point out that the word 

"enhance" is not contained in the federal 

guidance provided in the Instructional 

Memorandum 2003-275, Change 1 document 

located in Appendix I and note that this 

document should be the sole guidance for the 

consideration of wilderness characteristics in the 

land use planning process. We respectfully must 

challenge the embellished guidance provided by 

the state director as it is not consistent with 

federal BLM policy and has not undergone 

public review. We therefore suggest that the 

word "enhance" be removed from the MWC 

descriptive title and not used in the final RMP 

document. (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2130, letter 

#342)

Comment: BLM should be managing for 

wilderness characteristics, not enhancing. 

Several times throughout the RMP BLM makes 

references to enhancing. Clarification is needed.

(Individual, Yuma, Arizona - Comment: #1144, 

letter #382)

Public Concern (WC-18): 

Respondents suggest removing any reference to 

―wilderness‖ in the land use allocation to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. Instead, 

such areas could be called ―wonderful areas.‖

Response (WC-18): 

Policy guidance provided in Arizona Instruction 

Memorandum AZ-2004-021 and the attachment 

thereto suggests naming allocations for 

wilderness characteristics ―... such as lands with 

wilderness characteristics or areas having 

wilderness characteristics...‖ This memo was 

developed to provide some consistency to the 

way those allocations were named and applied. 

Though your suggestion has merit, we must 

follow state policy.

Public Comments (WC-18): 

Comment: If BLM believes that any lands 

within the Agua Fria and Bradshaw Harquahala 

planning areas contain natural resources worthy 

of protection we (ADBSS) would suggest that 

you instead identify them as "wonderful areas" 

and provide the desired level of protection by 

utilizing the existing palate of management tools 

and prescriptions currently at your disposal. We 

especially want to remove any reference to 

"wilderness" in the land use allocation 

description. (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2124, letter 

#342)

Public Concern (WC-19): 

Respondents indicated there is an inconsistent 

approach to management actions for lands 

managed to maintain wilderness characteristics 

compared to other plans published in Arizona.

Response (WC-19): 

The management actions proposed in the 

Alternatives are within the framework described 

by National and State policy and guidance. 

Differences in management actions as 

―compared to other plans published in Arizona‖ 

may be due to differences in resource 

conditions, management objectives, or local 

needs.

Public Comments (WC-19): 

Comment: We (ADBSS) must also note an 

obvious anomaly in the prescription of MWC 

management actions between this planning 
Chapter 5

796

process and others we are reviewing from other 

Arizona BLM Field Offices. With this RMP we 

are now reading a third variation of MWC 

allocations presented over three months from 

three different Field Offices. One would expect 

more consistency in the application and 

implementation prescriptions for identical land 

allocations regardless of the planning area or the 

BLM author. There is already too much 

variation in existing management practices and 

these planning processes should strive to provide 

more clear and direction. (Arizona Desert 

Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: 

#2135, letter #342)

Public Concern (WC-20): 

Comments were received addressing the 

manageability of areas allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics. The specific areas 

(areas in the Hells Canyon-Lake Pleasant and 

Black Canyon City areas) not only lack the 

characteristics for ―wilderness,‖ but present 

serious manageability issues because of their 

specific geographical location. Respondents feel 

that the multiple-use values and the current and 

potential uses of these areas would have to be 

eliminated or seriously restricted if these areas 

were allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics.

Response (WC-20): 

Meeting the management objectives for every 

allocation and designation in the Proposed RMP 

will be a challenge. The manageability of 

allocations for wilderness characteristics will be 

as much a challenge as the wildlife habitat area 

for bighorn sheep or the Recreation 

Management Zone around the Wickenburg 

community. Adequate funds and citizen 

participation will be required for the success of 

all allocations or designations. BLM is moving 

forward with a strategy to successfully 

implement the RMP, but only time will 

determine our success.

Public Comments (WC-20): 

Comment: The specific areas (areas in the Hells 

Canyon-Lake Pleasant area (2.6.2.2.2.6) and 

those in the Black Canyon City area 

(2.6.2.2.1.6)) not only lack the characteristics for 

Wilderness, but there are also serious 

manageability issues because of their specific 

geographical location. The multiple use values 

and the current and potential uses of these areas 

would have to be eliminated or seriously 

restricted if designation were to be made. There 

would be significant adverse impacts to the users 

of the public lands. Population demands and use 

can better be managed in a multiple use concept. 

Wilderness designation is excessively restrictive 

and ineffective to try to manage and maintain 

the demands of the future for the public. Classic 

examples of this can be seen in the Red Rock 

areas around Sedona. Wilderness designation 

seriously impacts the ability to provide facilities 

to manage the users in what amounts to nothing 

more than a urban park. (Verde Valley 4 

Wheelers, Cottonwood, AZ - Comment: #1953, 

letter #400)

Public Concern (WC-21): 

Numerous commenters believe too much land 

was allocated to wilderness characteristics 

based on scoping interest. They want proof that 

there is a need for another 96,000 acres to be 

managed for wilderness qualities over and 

above the 96,000 acres of designated 

Wilderness. Also, they feel with ACEC, 

―MWC,‖ TMA and RMZ, too much emphasis is 

being placed on solitude or non-mechanized 

recreation. They request an analysis of the 

cumulative effects of managing more areas for 

solitude, naturalness, and primitive recreation 

and want an explanation of where and how 

FLPMA allows a planning focus on these topics.

Response (WC-21): 

During scoping, much interest was expressed for 

maintaining open space and natural landscapes. 

With the emphasis placed on more intensive 

recreation uses in other parts of the Planning 

Areas, the intent of allocations to maintain 

wilderness characteristics is to retain large 

landscapes in relatively natural condition and to 

attempt to maintain them in their current 

undeveloped, primitive state.

The RMP/EIS analyzed several different levels 

and amounts of protection for areas with 

wilderness characteristics. Nearly 1,500 
Chapter 5

797

comments were received articulating a desire by 

a large segment of the public for more areas 

allocated for this purpose. In addition, the 

impact analysis conducted indicates 

management for wilderness characteristics will; 

protect large natural landscapes that favor 

wildlife, especially large species such as deer, 

pronghorn, javelina, and bighorn sheep; preserve 

areas for more solitude dependent recreation 

such as hunting, bird watching, nature 

photography, hiking and horseback riding; will 

maintain the natural appearing vistas generally 

considered the primary contribution of public 

lands to regional open space; and, since it is not 

wilderness and managed with strict wilderness 

management requirements, can provide some 

limited motorized and mechanized access to 

―back country‖ areas that is not allowed in a 

designated wilderness. It is BLM‘s opinion that

the Preferred Alternative provides the best 

balance of this type of recreation experience. As 

the region becomes more urbanized and areas 

closer to urban boundaries become more 

intensively managed for recreation uses, the 

areas allocated to maintain wilderness 

characteristics will remain the ―back country‖ 

available for the activities mentioned above.

More than anything, the focus of this planning 

effort is a comprehensive management of all 

recreation resources. Motorized recreation is as 

much the focus of the planning effort as solitude, 

naturalness, and opportunities for primitive 

recreation. FLPMA allows planning to address 

issues discovered through public participation. 

Outdoor recreation is defined in section 103 (l) 

as one of the ―principal or major uses‖ of BLMmanaged land. It is entirely within the 

framework of FLPMA to develop a management 

focus on outdoor recreation, including those 

resources described as ―wilderness 

characteristics.‖

Public Comments (WC-21): 

Comment: BLM is obligated to provide a 

'balance' of land use allocations, as per FLPMA. 

There is currently 96,000 acres of Wilderness. 

BLM proposes an additional 96,000 acres of 

MWC. Where is the need? Prove it. Currently 

there is sufficient areas to experience wilderness 

qualities. Understanding that Wilderness and 

MWC are not "the same", however throughout 

the RMP there is very specific wording used for 

MWC that is exactly like the wording, including

definitions of conditions and characteristics, 

used to describe Wilderness. (Individual, Yuma, 

Arizona - Comment: #1147, letter #382)

Comment: It was also noted that the MWC 

allocation in the preferred alternative represents 

a doubling of the lands already designated as 

wilderness. In our (ADBSS) opinion this MWC 

land allocation has been over employed 

especially when compared to the interest 

provided during public scoping. For the Agua 

Fria, wilderness issues represented 15% of the 

public comments while the total acreage 

proposed for an MWC allocation (20,900 acres) 

is 29.5% of the total acreage of the monument 

(75,520 acres). Similarly, with the four units 

comprising the Bradshaw-Harquahala planning 

area, wilderness support was a mere 2.2% of the 

total public scoping comments while the 

preferred alternative proposes an MWC 

allocation nearly four times greater at 8.4% of 

the total area (75,520 acres of MWC within a 

total of 895,910 acres). We would hope that the 

final RMP would better reconcile these public

comment numbers and its respective MWC 

allocations. (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2128, letter 

#342)

Public Concern (WC-22): 

Respondents want all areas inventoried as 

having wilderness characteristics (as portrayed 

on Map 3-12) allocated to that, including areas 

in the monument, in the Harquahala Mountains, 

the Belmont Mountains, the Bighorn Mountains, 

and around Black Butte. They believe that BLM 

has full authority to manage for wilderness 

characteristics and should use wilderness 

characteristics to overlap other management 

areas to help protect the natural and cultural 

landscape of public lands. To that end, BLM 

should prepare a new alternative for public 

consideration that includes full protection for 

lands the Arizona Wilderness Coalition has 

identified as having wilderness characteristics. 
Chapter 5

798

Response (WC-22):

The extent of allocation for wilderness 

characteristics chosen in the Proposed RMP 

represents the outcome of our efforts to best 

balance all demands on public lands within the 

Planning Areas. The area in the Proposed Plan 

allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics 

has both the most significant wilderness 

characteristics and is the most manageable for 

that allocation. Demand for motorized 

recreation, building materials, utility rights-ofway, and other resources not necessarily 

compatible with allocations for wilderness 

characteristics, are increasing and are expected 

to increase into the future. To meet the multiple 

use mandate of FLPMA, and to follow the 

policy statement found in FLPMA section 102 

(12), which says: the public lands be managed in 

a manner which recognizes the Nation‘s need for 

domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and 

fiber from the public lands including 

implementation of the Mining and Minerals 

Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C. 

21a) as it pertains to the public lands; allocations 

for wilderness characteristics have been made 

where those characteristics are most exemplary 

and where they are manageable.

Even on the Agua Fria National Monument, 

areas identified as having wilderness 

characteristics north of Bloody Basin road 

present a less manageable situation that those 

south of Bloody Basin Road. The need for 

future cultural resources inventory and 

research, as well as other uses of the area that 

may not be compatible with maintenance of 

wilderness characteristics prompted us to 

choose not to allocate it as such. BLM believes 

the Back Country Recreation Zone allocation 

will protect the most outstanding characteristics 

of the area while allowing scientific, 

educational, and other activities that may not be 

considered compatible with wilderness 

characteristics.

Public Comments (WC-22):

Comment: We would like to see BLM prepare a 

new alternative for public consideration that 

includes full protection for lands the Arizona 

Wilderness Coalition has identified as having 

wilderness characteristics. This should be 

subjected to public comment as the present draft 

has been. (Individual, Baltimore, MD -

Comment: #1022, letter #381)

Comment: It is our opinion that managing for 

"Wilderness Characteristics" is the best tool the 

BLM has at their disposal to protect Monument 

values like the archeological sites, pronghorn 

habitat, and riparian areas while also providing 

for solitude and primitive recreational 

opportunities. Also, because of declining federal 

budgets and the resources needed to effectively 

enforce and manage activity on public lands, we 

feel it is better for the BLM to be conservative in 

their management decisions regarding those 

areas where we still have wilderness 

characteristics, in order to preserve them for 

future generations. (Individual, New River, AZ -

Comment: #974, letter #360)

Public Concern (WC-23): 

Respondents feel that Map 2-74 ignores a high 

voltage power line that bisects an area managed 

to maintain wilderness characteristics. They 

believe that areas with wilderness 

characteristics should have boundaries that go 

right up to the right-of-way for any particular 

non-conforming use, but not include that use. 

They are concerned that this particular 

allocation appears to be trying to set a 

precedent, rather than using an existing one.

Response (WC-23): 

After considerable deliberation, the identified 

wilderness characteristics mapped in the plan are 

believed to be sound.

The allocation to maintain wilderness 

characteristics is not a wilderness designation or 

creation of Wilderness Study Areas. As such, 

definition of boundaries is not dependent on the 

same criteria. Creating two units bounded by 

the power line or having one area with the power 

line as an accepted use within it are 

managerially the same and the second choice is 

functionally simpler. We have retained the 

allocation as one ―unit‖ with the powerline 
Chapter 5

799

running through it in our Proposed Plan. Our 

decision is based on the following:

 We are unsure what would constitute the 

boundary, the powerline itself or the 

powerline right-of-way. Would wherever the 

powerline is visible be excluded? If the 

reason to exclude the powerline is to remove 

the impact of it from the allocation, the last 

option would be the preferred, but very little 

would remain of the allocated area.

 There are many cases of high tension 

powerlines running through congressionally 

designated Wilderness Areas. This allocation 

has neither the legal nor theoretical standard 

of a designated Wilderness Area and we are 

not setting any precedence with the decision.

 Current guidelines for allocations to maintain 

wilderness characteristics do not use the 

former Wilderness Handbook, which has been 

determined to be legally obsolete. We cannot 

develop management guidelines based on the 

prospect of its potential legal reinstatement.

 We considered the allocation both ways and 

see no management advantage in splitting the 

area along the powerline.

Public Comments (WC-23): 

Comment: There is no true precedent that can 

be used for having a 500 KV power line splitting 

an "area with wilderness characteristics" down 

the middle. This appears more in the nature of 

trying to set a precedent than using an existing 

precedent. (Friends of the Agua Fria National 

Monument, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2096, 

letter #339)

Comment: We would like to first note that there 

are, as near as we can tell, two maps that one can 

use to determine which areas in the AFNM have 

wilderness characteristics. These are map 2-74 

and map 3-12. While map 2-74 has much better 

detail, it is flawed in a number of ways. 

Basically, the standards used to determine 

boundaries appear to be "double standard" in 

nature. Map 2-74 ignores a high voltage power 

line that approximately bisects the area in 

question. It is our opinion that you cannot ignore 

this power line, even if we are only talking about 

areas with wilderness characteristics. The "areas 

with wilderness characteristics" boundaries may 

go up to the power line right of way in the same 

way that a boundary can go up to the right of 

way for a backcountry road or a limited access 

interstate highway. All three of these things 

represent negative visual impacts to an area that 

has wilderness characteristics, but do not 

preclude these areas from being areas that have 

wilderness characteristics. Nor is it necessary to 

have "buffer zones" to visually distance these 

non-conforming uses from areas that have 

wilderness characteristics. While power lines 

and roads may be visually unattractive to human 

beings, it makes no difference to objects in the 

Monument that are listed for protection in the 

Monument proclamation. All boundaries for 

areas having wilderness characteristics shall go 

right up to the right of way for that particular 

non-conforming use. (Sierra Club Southwest 

Regional Office, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1850, letter #340)

5.4.10 VISUAL RESOURCES

Public Concern (VM-1): 

Respondents suggest that management 

prescription should err on the side of being 

conservative and that all non-wilderness areas 

be given a VRM Class III designation unless it is 

within a certain distance of some outstanding 

vistas or natural visual resources. Additionally, 

respondents feel it was very difficult to ascertain 

the boundaries of the VRM classifications and 

would like a clearer presentation and 

explanation of the contrast rating process in the 

final document, including a more detailed listing 

of allowable and restricted conservation 

activities (i.e., wildlife water developments).

Response (VM-1): 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

management classes are standards applied in 

RMPs intended to meet visual objectives. It was 

determined that the VRM Classes allocated in 

the Preferred Alternative were the least 

restrictive classes needed to meet those 

objectives. It is not the intent of BLM or the 

VRM process to curtail activities, but rather to 

initiate negotiations on design criteria that meet 

the visual standards as implemented through the 

Contrast Rating System described in BLM 
Chapter 5

800

Handbook H-8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast 

Rating which can be found at 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8431.html.

Public Comments (VM-1): 

Comment: We (ADBSS) are very fearful that 

VRM allocations will become a future tool to 

curtail or obstruct beneficial wildlife 

conservation activities. We would therefore 

suggest that in the infancy of this new RMP that 

management prescriptions should error on the 

side of being conservative and that all nonwilderness areas be given a VRM class 3 

designation unless it is within a certain distance 

of some outstanding vistas or natural visual 

resources. Caution needs to be exercised to not 

create "buffer" areas around existing wilderness 

areas as this clearly violates Congressional 

intent. (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, 

Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2139, letter #342)

Comment: We (ADBSS) would also hope that 

the final RMP would more clearly define the 

"VRM contrast rating process" in prescribing 

allowable projects and activities and the 

mitigation measures required. Clearer direction 

is needed in this regard to more accurately 

assess the associated impacts to wildlife 

conservation activities and programs brought 

upon by these VRM classifications. (Arizona 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ -

Comment: #2137, letter #342)

Public Concern (VM-2): 

Respondents feel Alternative D in the BradshawHarquahala Planning region should be chosen 

for Visible Resource Management goals to 

protect the last remaining vistas. Additionally, 

respondents prefer the VRM class sizes shown 

on Map 2-59 would better preserve the wild and 

scenic character of the monument backcountry. 

All attempts to limit light pollution in the 

monument should be made. 

Response (VM-2): 

BLM believes the proposed Alternative E VRM 

classes for the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area and the Agua Fria National Monument will 

protect scenic vistas. The proposed visual 

standards in the AFNM will protect current 

visual and scenic conditions, while potentially 

allowing Front Country infrastructure needed for 

resource protection, visitor safety, or protection 

of monument objects. 

Outside of the AFNM, the proposed VRM 

standards should little impact the construction of 

new and well-designed motorized and nonmotorized use trails on BLM-administered 

lands. New trail construction will need to be 

designed and sited to satisfy visual standards 

presented in the land use plan. Proposed visual 

management classes should not greatly impact 

or curtail the potential linking of the currently 

disconnected trail segments along the motorized

portions of the Black Canyon Trail, nor 

proposed new alignments for the non-motorized

BCT. 

BLM will attempt to limit the impact of fugitive 

light on the monument‘s dark skies. However, 

most light pollution comes from nearby and 

encroaching developed areas and communities, 

including the Phoenix metropolitan area. The 

metro area has tremendous light pollution 

extending into all parts of the planning area. 

Management of those light sources and light 

pollution is not within BLM‘s jurisdiction. 

BLM, however, will support local communities 

and citizen initiatives implementing dark skies 

and light pollution efforts.

Public Comments (VM-2): 

Comment: Alternative D in the BradshawHarquahala Planning region should be chosen 

for Visible Resource Management goals to 

protect the last remaining vistas. (Individual, 

Prescott, AZ - Comment: #1014, letter #183)

Comment: Visual Resources 2.6.1.7 and 2.7.2.8 

The preferred alternative should allocate more 

land to VRM class II; only visually impacted 

areas located in designated front country areas 

should be designated as VRM class III. For 

instance, the preferred alternative classifies too 

much land as front country, and as a result, the 

proposed VRM class III acreage shown on Map 

2-75 is too large. We prefer the VRM class sizes 

shown on Map 2-59 which better preserve the 

wild and scenic character of the monument 
Chapter 5

801

backcountry. All attempts to limit light pollution 

in the monument should be made. (Friends of 

the Agua Fria National Monument, Glendale, 

AZ - Comment: #2097, letter #339)

Public Concern (VM-3): 

Respondents want BLM to prioritize the 

limitation of light pollution in the monument, but 

others request an exception to the prescription 

to minimize night sky impacts of lighting 

―...where those standards may not be 

compatible with public transportation 

facilities.‖

Response (VM-3): 

The Desired Future Condition is ―As much as 

possible, keep night skies free of light 

pollution.‖ New lighting technology may allow 

us to work together to find mutually acceptable 

alternatives to achieve the Desired Future 

Condition. Transportation facilities in the 

vicinity of observatories have found ways to 

minimize night sky light pollution, yet meet 

transportation facility needs. However, 

considering issues of human safety, it may not 

be possible to achieve this Desired Future 

Condition in every case.

Public Comments (VM-3): 

Comment: The nearby BLM lands in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala planning area should be 

managed to preserve a natural vista from, and 

into, the Monument. In addition, the visual 

resources seen from the monument should not be 

degraded, and should prioritize the preservation 

of a dark night sky, free of light pollution. 

(Friends of the Agua Fria National Monument, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2098, letter #339)

Comment: Section 2.6.1.72.6.1.7 Visual 

Resources, Page 165: The sentence "Cooperate 

with surrounding communities and national, 

State, regional, and local entities to minimize the 

impacts of lighting. Include clear nights from 

lights standards in new permit/authorizations

and in renewing permits/authorizations with all 

the view-sheds affecting the monument." should 

be modified to allow exceptions where those 

standards may not be compatible with public 

transportation facilities. ADOT is concerned this 

stipulation may negatively affect future lighting 

plans at Sunset Rest Area, the proposed Sunrise 

Rest Area, and traffic interchanges. (Arizona 

Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1436, letter #397)

Public Concern (VM-4): 

Respondents feel VRM ―restrictions are onerous 

and subjective‖ and that that mining operations 

will be severely limited which is not a ―realistic 

approach to managing resource development.‖

Response (VM-4): 

The Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

process, which was developed by BLM in 1978,

was specifically designed to create a process that 

was as objective as possible and achievable by 

non-landscape architect professionals. A full 

description of BLM‘s VRM system can be found 

online at www.blm.gov. 

The VRM system is implemented by using the 

contrast rating process. The contrast rating 

process (Manual Section 8431) is used as a 

visual design tool in project design and as a 

project assessment tool during environmental 

review. It is not intended as a means to 

eliminate activities, but rather to design them to 

meet VRM objectives, as defined in section 

2.7.1.8 of the Draft RMPs/Draft EIS. It has 

proven over the last 28 years to be both a valid 

and very realistic approach to managing 

resources and maintaining the visual integrity of 

the landscapes on BLM-managed lands. 

Discussion in document Section 4.17.8 describes 

the anticipated impacts on mineral development 

from Visual Resource Management. 

Additionally, mining activity will continue 

wherever it is allowed within the Planning Area 

in conformance with applicable laws and 

regulations.

Public Comments (VM-4): 

Comment: The Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) restrictions are also quite severe. The 

various Alternatives permit only Classes I, II 

and occasionally III. These imply that there 

cannot be any significant amount of mining. The 

amount of dust that is produced can be kept 

down by means of water sprays, but there will 
Chapter 5

802

some disturbance of the landscape during the 

mining process. (Department of Mines and 

Mineral Resources, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#166, letter #61)

Comment: Visual Resource Management 

restrictions are onerous and subjective and 

clearly implications that mining activities will be 

severely limited. Further, these restrictions do 

not represent a realistic approach to managing 

resource development. Recent state legislation 

has addressed reclamation concerns (i.e. 

Aggregate Mined Land Reclamation Act of 

2005) and current practices have proven that 

disturbed land can be restored to a useable and 

often more beneficial condition. (Arizona Rock 

Products Association, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1473, letter #355)

Public Concern (VM-5): 

Commenter wants protection of the scenic areas 

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area.

Response (VM-5):

BLM believes proposed VRM classes for the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area will 

protect scenic vistas and maintain landscapes 

that currently appear natural, or afford good 

vistas. Numerous areas contain Class II 

Management Areas, while Wilderness Areas 

contain Class I. This is an overall improvement 

from the No Action Alternative where most of 

these lands where lumped primarily into Class 

III areas. Increased public concern for the 

preservation of scenery, scenic vistas, and open 

space reflect public concern for the preservation 

of scenery, scenic vistas, and open space while 

still providing for multiple uses in this 

document. 

Public Comments (VM-5):

Comment: Also I am hoping they protect the 

scenic areas in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

planning region. (Individual, Prescott, AZ -

Comment: #786, letter #228)

Public Concern (VM-6): 

Respondents would like an exception to the 

proposed VRM Class II and the Black Canyon 

SRMA to allow proposed semi-primitive 

motorized route connecting links that will join 

disconnected segments of the Black Canyon 

Trail motorized route, as it does not currently 

appear to allow for construction. This would 

allow users of the semi-primitive motorized 

route of the Black Canyon Trail System to have 

the opportunity for a back-country trail 

experience similar to the non-motorized route.

Response (VM-6): 

The proposed Class II VRM standards should 

have little impact one the construction of new, 

well-sited and well-designed motorized trails on 

BLM-administered lands in the Black Canyon 

Corridor. New trail construction for the 

motorized parts of the Black Canyon Trail route 

system will need to be designed and sited to 

satisfy visual standards presented in the land use 

plan. Proposed visual management classes 

should not greatly impact or curtail the potential 

linking of the currently disconnected trail 

segments along the motorized portions of the 

Black Canyon Trail.

Public Comments (VM-6): 

Comment: 2.Alternative E - pg 177, section 

2.6.2.2.1.7 Visual Resources, Land Use 

Allocations: Add an exception to the proposed 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II 

and the Black Canyon SRMA to allow proposed 

semi-primitive motorized route connecting links 

that will join currently disconnected segments of 

the Black Canyon Trail motorized route. VRM 

Class II does not appear to allow construction of 

motorized segments that will be proposed to join 

these disconnected segments. Users of the semiprimitive motorized route of the Black Canyon 

Trail System will then have the opportunity for a 

back-country trail experience similar to the nonmotorized route. (Black Canyon Trail Coalition, 

In, Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #1259, 

letter #280)
Chapter 5

803

5.4.11 RANGELAND

MANAGEMENT

Public Concern (GM-1): 

Commenters want BLM to recognize grazing 

conflicts with other multiple uses and provide a 

mechanism for retiring grazing allotments, 

including voluntary relinquishments. 

Response (GM-1): 

The impact analysis recognizes and attempts to 

describe the conflicts between grazing and other 

multiple uses. In the Management Common to 

Both Planning areas, in Section 2.7.1.9 –

Rangeland Management, we say: 

Retiring livestock grazing from an allotment 

would be considered when those lands are 

devoted to a public purpose that precludes 

continued livestock grazing. This provides us 

with a mechanism for retiring grazing where it is 

necessary.

Public Comments (GM-1): 

Comment: The National Public Lands Grazing 

Campaign (NPLGC) urges Phoenix Field Office 

planners to develop a resource management plan 

that (I) recognizes livestock grazing conflicts 

with other multiple uses of federal public land 

(National Public Lands Grazing Campaign, 

Chandler, AZ - Comment: #1051, letter #185)

Comment: Given the conditions of many of the 

allotments within the planning area and on the 

Agua Fria NM, and given the inappropriateness 

of grazing in the desert biome in which they 

occur, and given the lack of economic viability 

of many of the current livestock operations, we 

support the inclusion of language in the final 

RMP that would allow voluntary permit 

relinquishment and compensation to livestock 

operators for permanent allotment retirement. 

(Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #1585, letter #338)

Public Concern (GM-2): 

Commenters feel the Draft RMP fails to address 

the role livestock play in changing fire regimes. 

There is a need to discuss elimination of grazing 

and the ―...subsequent introduction and spread 

of non-native plants...‖ as a fire management 

tool. Livestock grazing should not be allowed in 

areas that have burned for a minimum of two to 

three years. An analysis should be done to 

determine conditions have recovered sufficiently 

to allow grazing to occur.

Response (GM-2): 

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 such as prickly pear or cholla 

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 planning 

areas are dependant on rainfall. 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 will establish the 

appropriate time for livestock to be reauthorized.

Public Comments (GM-2): 

Comment: Livestock grazing should not be 

allowed in areas that have burned through either 

wildfire or prescription for a period of years. A 

site-specific analysis should be done prior to 

initiating grazing, but at a minimum, two to 

three years rest and recovery after the fire to 

determine the actual condition of the vegetation 

and soil resources, since some vegetation 

communities may not reach their compositional 

peak until the second or third year (Guo 2001). 

Post-fire livestock grazing can delay recovery of 

burned areas, and should not be permitted in 

burned areas until vegetation recovery has 

occurred (Beschta et al. 2004). (Center for 
Chapter 5

804

Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: 

#1599, letter #338)

Comment: Site-specific analyses of grazing 

impacts should be conducted before livestock 

grazing permits are reissued, and the elimination 

of livestock grazing and the subsequent 

introduction and spread of non-native plants 

should be addresses as a potential fire 

management tool. (Center for Biological 

Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1598, letter 

#338)

Public Concern (GM-3): 

Respondent supports the inclusion of language 

that stipulates certified weed free feed, mulch, 

and seed should be used in all Planning Areas, 

especially permitted livestock operations.

Response (GM-3): 

BLM lacks the regulatory authority to enforce 

quality control of forage fed to grazing animals 

on private land. The Phoenix District does not 

approve feeding of contaminated forage on 

public land.

Public Comments (GM-3): 

Comment: We support the inclusion of 

language that stipulates only certified weed-free 

feed, mulch, and seed can be used in all planning 

areas. However, the BLM needs to go one step 

further and require that all livestock should be 

fed certified weed- and seed- free hay for a 

period of days prior to their release on the public 

lands, since the slow digestion of ruminants can 

also spread non-native species through delayed 

defecation. This would ideally apply to 

recreational stock as well, but should absolutely 

apply to the livestock operators leasing our 

public lands. (Center for Biological Diversity, 

Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1593, letter #338)

Public Concern (GM-4): 

Respondents believe the BLM should select the 

alternative that most proactively manages for 

non-native species in the Planning Area. 

Additionally, since respondents believe issues of 

non-native species can be closely linked with 

livestock related disturbance, they object to the 

use of biological controls that involve livestock. 

Response (GM-4): 

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 the analyzed under the 

provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act and approved by the authorized officer.

Public Comments (GM-4): 

Comment: Because the issues of non-native 

species can be closely linked with livestockrelated disturbance, we object to the use of 

biological controls that involve livestock, as 

proposed on page 268 of the draft RMP. We do 

not believe these treatments should be used in 

the planning area, unless strict regulation and 

site-specific EAs are developed. We also do not 

believe that livestock should ever be used to 

manage weed infestations in riparian areas, since 

livestock will ultimately do more harm than 

good when they are introduced in these fragile 

ecosystems. (Center for Biological Diversity, 

Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1595, letter #338)

Comment: The BLM should select the 

alternative that most proactively manages for 

non-native species in the planning area. The 

removal of livestock meets this objective, and

alternative D is therefore the most meaningful of 

the proposed alternatives. (Center for Biological 

Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1596, letter 

#338)

Public Concern (GM-5): 

Respondents believe the BLM should prohibit 

grazing in the AFNM to protect the Agua Fria 

River and other monument objects, especially 

cultural sites and pronghorn. They feel grazing 

perpetuates serious conflicts with the 

proclamation.

Response (GM-5): 

Livestock grazing is a legitimate multiple use of 

public land authorized by the Taylor Grazing 
Chapter 5

805

Act of 1934 and the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. Continued 

grazing management on the national monument 

was recognized in the Proclamation with the 

statement ―Laws, regulations, and policies 

followed by the Bureau of Land Management in 

issuing and administering grazing leases on all 

lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to 

apply with regard to the lands in the monument.‖ 

It is BLM‘s intent to meet the requirement to 

protect the resources of the monument while 

also administering grazing on the monument. By 

following established regulations, policies and 

procedures, the Phoenix District will ensure that 

AFNM is managed consistent with the Resource 

Management Plan, the presidential 

Proclamation, the multiple use and sustained 

yield principles of FLPMA, and other 

environmental values and objectives. The impact 

analysis indicates the Proposed Plan does this. 

Factors that may prevent the attainment of land 

health standards or land use plan objectives will 

be identified by Rangeland Health Allotment 

Evaluations and the NEPA analysis. Appropriate 

management changes will be made or new 

management practices implemented by the 

authorized officer to reduce current or potential 

impacts to the vegetative, soil, and cultural 

resources.

Public Comments (GM-5): 

Comment: The BLM should continue to 

manage the Agua Fria River and its tributaries 

for its unique values and important habitat that 

have already been formally recognized. 

Aesthetic, recreational, and ecological values are 

important factors that are adversely impacted by 

livestock grazing. The BLM should choose 

Alternative D for the management of livestock 

in the Agua Fria National Monument and for the 

health of the Agua Fria River. (Center for 

Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: 

#1559, letter #338)

Comment: To Maricopa Audubon members 

grazing in this monument is having a severely 

detrimental effect on monument objects, from 

the trampling of cultural resources to the over 

consumption of grasses that pronghorn need as 

well as birds and other wildlife. This is a severe 

impact upon the riparian areas. The Preferred 

Alternative attempts to mitigate these effects 

through the use of seasonal and riparian area 

restrictions, but this simply creates a host of 

other problems. In addition, it continues to 

perpetuate the conflicts between allowing desert 

grazing and protecting the objects of the 

monument. Maricopa Audubon members most 

surely believe that grazing should be prohibited 

within the monument to comply with the 

monument proclamation. (Maricopa Audubon 

Society, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1254, letter 

#321)

Public Concern (GM-6): 

Respondents feel choosing any riparian grazing 

alternative would compromise the habitat of 

federally listed and sensitive wildlife species, 

such as the Gila mountain sucker, the Gila chub, 

the speckled dace, the longfin dace, the desert 

pupfish, and the Gila topminnow. This is a 

violation of BLM mandates to protect and 

recover special status species. Threatened and 

endangered aquatic species lack adequate 

protection and the Preferred Alternative fails to 

adhere to the spirit and letter of the Endangered 

Species Act.

Response (GM-6): 

By applying approved BLM methods and 

protocol, the Phoenix District will formulate and 

implement grazing management changes when 

rangeland health guidelines are not being met, 

under current management, in riparian systems 

and upland communities. The construction of 

fences and alternative water sources along with a 

winter-grazing-only season of use will result in 

achievement of proper functioning condition 

(PFC). To date, the Phoenix District has had 

great success on three AFNM allotments when 

management changes were implemented.

Proven grazing management strategies endorsed 

by USDI and USDA have been, or will be, 

implemented to protect the Agua Fria River and 

its tributaries. Growing season rest and 

utilization limits have, or will be, prescribed to 

address upland health issues, which could 

impact riparian areas.
Chapter 5

806

Implementing the recommendations of allotment 

evaluations will protect wildlife habitat, 

including habitat of native fishes found in the 

Agua Fria River and its tributaries. For example, 

BLM requested a conference opinion from the 

USFWS on the possible effects to the proposed 

endangered Gila chub and its proposed critical 

habitat resulting from implementation of the 

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (RMP) and 

associated activities in the Agua Fria National 

Monument. The USFWS in their conservation 

measures specifically stated (at p. 19 of the 

conference opinion dated July 20, 2004), 

―Implementation of these restrictions is expected 

to improve Gila chub habitat by helping to 

increase the recruitment and survival of 

cottonwood tree seedlings ‖

In summary, by following established 

regulations, policies and procedures, the Phoenix 

will ensure that AFNM is managed consistent 

with the Resource Management Plan, the 

presidential Proclamation, the multiple-use and 

sustained-yield principles of FLPMA, and other 

environmental values and objectives. Factors 

that may prevent the attainment of land health 

standards or land use plan objectives will be 

identified by Rangeland Health Allotment 

Evaluations and the NEPA analysis. 

Appropriate management changes will be made 

or new management practices implemented by 

the authorized officer to reduce current or 

potential impacts to the vegetative, soil, and 

cultural resources.

Public Comments (GM-6): 

Comment: Choosing any riparian grazing 

alternative then would compromise the habitat 

of federally listed and sensitive wildlife species, 

the Gila mountain sucker, the Gila chub, the 

speckled dace, and the longfin dace. This is a 

violation of BLM mandates to protect and 

recover special status species. (Center for 

Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: 

#1562, letter #338)

Comment: Threatened and endangered aquatic 

species lack adequate protection. Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative E) fails to adhere to the 

spirit and letter of the Endangered Species Act 

by lacking protection of critical habitat for the 

desert pupfish, the Gila topminnow, and the Gila 

chub. The Endangered Species Act states that 

―agencies must insure any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of an endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction of 

critical habitat for these species, unless the 

agency has been granted an exemption.‖ Both 

the desert pupfish and the Gila topminnow are 

federally listed endangered species; the Gila 

chub was proposed for listing as endangered in 

2002 with an additional critical habitat 

designation. Because these species prefer upland 

areas and areas near terrestrial riparian, both 

grazing in riparian areas and high levels of 

recreation in adjacent uplands can degrade the 

habitat of these species. (Individual, Champaign, 

IL - Comment: #1892, letter #201)

Public Concern (GM-7): 

Respondents suggest the BLM should contribute 

to the survival and recovery of the desert 

tortoise by eliminating uses, such as grazing, 

that conflict with this goal. 

Response (GM-7): 

Wildlife habitat values are an important 

consideration during S&G allotment analysis. 

The Phoenix District and the AG&F work, 

cooperatively, to identify and mitigate conflicts 

between livestock management practices, 

rangeland improvements and wildlife habitat 

requirements.

Public Comments (GM-7): 

Comment: The desert tortoise is specifically 

identified in the Monument Proclamation as an 

"object" to be protected. The population of 

desert tortoise in the planning area is protected 

by Arizona state law. Desert tortoise are 

threatened throughout their range by loss of 

habitat, and in the planning area of the draft 

RMP, this means by motorized vehicles, lack of 

forage, and degraded habitat caused by soil 

compaction. It is worth noting that livestock 

operations directly and indirectly cause of all 

these adverse effects. Livestock trample and 

crush tortoise burrows and kill juvenile tortoise. 

Livestock spread invasive species and thereby 
Chapter 5

807

indirectly diminish the native plant species that 

would otherwise provide forage for the species. 

Livestock also directly consume forage that 

would otherwise supply tortoise populations, 

and in a drought year, livestock operations can 

literally starve the desert tortoise. Livestock 

compact soils and accelerate erosion, which 

diminishes the quality of the soil strata that 

tortoise use to burrow and lay eggs. The BLM 

should contribute to the survival and recovery of 

the charismatic desert tortoise in the planning 

area by eliminating uses that conflict with this 

goal. The tortoise should not have to compete 

with livestock operations on the Agua Fria NM 

for viable habitat, since the tortoise is protected 

by the Monument Proclamation, but livestock 

are not. (Center for Biological Diversity, 

Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1582, letter #338)

Public Concern (GM-8): 

Respondents feel grazing of sheep and goats 

should not be allowed anywhere near bighorn 

sheep areas and that the Harquahala Mountains 

ACEC should be closed to livestock grazing 

during bighorn sheep lambing season.

Response (GM-8): 

The BLM believes that the livestock grazing 

management actions for desert bighorn sheep 

habitat areas adequately protects the species 

from livestock conflicts.

Public Comments (GM-8): 

Comment: *Grazing of sheep and goats* should 

not be allowed ANYWHERE near bighorn 

sheep areas. Nine miles may not even be far 

enough in light of the eyeworm fiasco in 

Southern AZ a year or two ago. It might also be 

good to prohibit the use of pack goats in these 

areas, in case any hikers are using them, just for 

safety. The price of a mistake is just too great. 

(Individual, Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: 

#1933, letter #353)

Comment: EPA recommends the following 

changes to the preferred alternative for the 

protection of wildlife: Close Harquahala 

Mountains ONA ACEC to livestock grazing 

during Big Horn Sheep lambing season, as

identified under Alternative C. This would 

increase wildlife forage quality and availability 

and elininate forage competition between Big 

Horn Sheep and livestock during the critical 

lambing season (p. 498). (U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA -

Comment: #2195, letter #396)

Public Concern (GM-9): 

Several comments were received addressing 

removal of livestock and fences from pronghorn 

habitat. Commenters feel the many miles of 

fence on the ten allotments interfere with 

pronghorn and deer movement, that keeping the 

cattle out of the sensitive riparian areas is 

problematic, and that this requires significant 

resources for fencing and facilities.

Response (GM-9): 

Wildlife habitat values are an important 

consideration during S&G allotment analysis. 

The Phoenix District and the AG&F work, 

cooperatively, to identify and mitigate conflicts 

between livestock management practices, 

rangeland improvements, and wildlife habitat 

requirements. Fencing would be required to 

follow BLM fencing recommendations that 

account for wildlife needs. Modification of 

existing fences is ongoing as funds are available 

to make existing fences conform to wildlife 

friendly, and especially pronghorn friendly 

standards. We will utilize partnerships to 

accomplish fence modifications. Any 

modifications would need to maintain the 

integrity of pastures and rotation schedules 

required by livestock grazing permits.

Public Comments (GM-9): 

Comment: The management actions for the PA 

appears little different than the current 

management regime. In fact, some of the 

proposed actions to manage livestock will result 

in harm to monument objects. For example, the 

placement of fencing around the Badger Springs 

Wash area will result in an additional wildlife 

barrier in the critically narrow pronghorn 

corridor that leads up to their fawning habitat on 

Black Mesa. There are many miles of fence on 

the 10 allotments that interfere with pronghorn 

and deer movement. Keeping the cattle out of 

the sensitive riparian areas is problematic and 
Chapter 5

808

also requires significant resources for fencing 

and facilities, both of which demand constant 

vigilance to maintain. (Friends of the Agua Fria 

National Monument, Glendale, AZ - Comment: 

#2101, letter #339)

Comment: In addition, the BLM should ensure 

that all fencing used on the monument is 

"animal-friendly" and does not interfere with the 

movement of protected wildlife species such as 

pronghorn. Organizations such as the Sierra 

Club could assist in fence removal and 

conversion. (Sierra Club Southwest Regional 

Office, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1828, letter 

#340)

Public Concern (GM-10): 

Respondent wants BLM to give some attention to 

damaged fences in the monument.

Response (GM-10):

Site-specific management actions are addressed 

in individual planning efforts. As a general 

grazing management practice maintenance of 

individual range improvements is the 

responsibility of the authorized grazing 

permittee/lessee.

Public Comments (GM-10):

Comment: My family holds the BLM grazing 

lease in this area - we can't use it due to all of 

the fences being down - thanks for your 

attention (Individual - Comment: #117, letter 

#64)

Public Concern (GM-11): 

Respondent states that the Inner Basin 

improvements facilities are privately owned 

under Section 4 permits #A2-4-333 and #A2-4-

345 and are very important to their Ranching 

operation, and must be maintained.

Response (GM-11):

Thank you for the comment; we believe the 

discussion on range improvements provides 

opportunity for maintenance of these 

improvements if they are helping to achieve the 

Desired Future Condition of the area in question. 

Any impacts to authorized permittees/lessees of 

range improvements under either section 4 

permits or cooperative agreements will be in 

accordance with the grazing regulations that the 

BLM administers.

Public Comments (GM-11):

Comment: Inner Basin improvements facilities 

are privately owned under Section 4 permits 

#A2-4-333 and #A2-4-345. They are very 

important to our Ranching operation, and must 

be maintained. (Individual, Kingman, AZ -

Comment: #1177, letter #352)

Public Concern (GM-12): 

Respondents express that any takings, 

modifications, or alterations to the Aguila 

Ranch or the Loma Linda Ranch grazing 

systems without the ―three C’s‖ (Consultation, 

Cooperation, and Coordination) would be 

protested. Other commenters state that they 

found proposed actions which would greatly 

affect their ranching operations by restricting 

grazing, watering facilities, and water usage in 

some areas and note that stock tanks also attract 

wildlife such as birds. 

Response (GM-12): 

Collaboration with the public in the 

development of this plan was actively sought by 

the BLM in the development of the RMPs. The 

document provides for a full range of 

alternatives that may have some specific 

management actions that may impact grazing 

operations depending on the alternative. These 

alternatives and resultant actions were developed 

in public process, and the BLM understands that 

individual grazing permittees/lessees would 

oppose such actions if they impacted the 

individuals operation. However, such the 

alternatives must still be considered and 

analyzed, and addressed issues that were raised 

during the public participation processed. Sitespecific planning, and evaluation will address 

individual grazing allotment management.

Public Comments (GM-12): 

Comment: Any takings, modifications, or 

alterations to the Aguila Ranch or the Loma 

Linda Ranch grazing systems as to watering 

facilities, limits to grazing or restrictions to 

improvements to the Browns Canyon, Inner 
Chapter 5

809

Basin or Humming Bird Springs or any other 

facilities without the 3 C's (Consultation, 

Cooperation, and Coordination means 

interaction for the purpose of obtaining advice, 

or exchanging opinions on issues, plans, or 

management actions.) would be protested.

(Individual, Kingman, AZ - Comment: #1175, 

letter #352)

Comment: A common theme through this land 

use plan, and all land use plans involving cattle, 

is to control (fence) or otherwise restrict cattle 

around riparian areas, streams, wetlands, etc. 

This, of course, requires stock tanks away from 

these areas. Not all stock tanks are undesirable 

even though they attract cow birds and invasive 

plant species as a result of disturbed soil. On 

Perry Mesa and other upland mesas we have 

found water pipits, sandpipers, ducks other grass 

land birds using stock tanks. Some stock tanks 

have high retention walls to create the basins. 

Pronghorns, requiring safety sight distances, 

avoid tanks with that structure. One tank with a 

windmill south of Bloody Basin road has good 

sight distances and has horned larks, savanna 

sparrows, and other grassland birds using the 

water. The pumping was inactive but the mill 

was rotating; e.g., presumably dry well.

(Sonoran Audubon Society - Comment: #1244, 

letter #287)

Public Concern (GM-13): 

Respondents support complete closure of 

pastures with riparian habitat. The respondent 

also states that there is evidence demonstrating 

the adverse influence of livestock in riparian 

areas, and the lack of evidence that winter 

grazing makes a positive difference. They feel 

the BLM cannot legally or ethically choose to 

imperil these important riparian areas (for 

which, in part, the monument was designated) 

by failing to select rangeland management 

Alternative D. Others noted that the restriction 

on grazing in riparian habitat should extend 

beyond just the monument.

Response (GM-13):

Forage allocation decisions have been made in a 

previous EIS including the Lower Gila North 

and Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS. These 

documents have been incorporated by reference, 

and fully considered a range of alternatives. 

Processes to adjust grazing preference are 

established and implemented through existing 

laws, regulations and policy. It is an 

implementation level decision and adjustments 

to forage allocation are incorporated through 

individual allotment decisions.

Public Comments (GM-13):

Comment: Riparian areas can recover and begin 

to move towards proper functioning condition if 

livestock are removed. So many of the riparian 

areas in the Monument are functioning at risk, 

and it would behoove the agency to consider 

removing livestock as a temporary or permanent 

tool for riparian recovery. Trout recovered 

significantly in Pacific Northwest streams closed 

to livestock (Bowers, et al. 1979); and riparian 

canopy-dependent bird species increased 20-fold 

along the San Pedro River after cattle were 

removed in 1986 (Krueper 1993). Livestockgrazing adversely impacts on 17 of 43 neotropical migratory bird species in southeastern 

Arizona (Bock et al. 1992). Given the 

overwhelming evidence demonstrating the 

adverse influence of livestock in riparian areas, 

and the lack of evidence that winter grazing 

would make a positive difference on these 

impacts, we believe the BLM is in error for it 

preference of Alternative E. The BLM cannot 

legally or ethically choose to imperil these 

important riparian areas (for which, in part, the 

Monument was designated) by failing to select 

rangeland management alternative D. (Center 

for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #1564, letter #338)

Comment: Livestock should be fenced out of all 

springs and riparian areas year round, and 

provided alternative water sources away from 

these areas. (Individual, Tucson, AZ - Comment: 

#836, letter #319)

Public Concern (GM-14): 

Commenters support the withdrawal of livestock 

from the upland allotments where livestock use 

compacts soils, accelerates erosion, and has 

adverse downstream impacts. Others suggest 

language be added about the season of use and 
Chapter 5

810

longevity of exposure to livestock in order to 

move each particular area toward its described 

Desired Future Condition, which would provide 

BLM with maximum flexibility.

Response (GM-14):

We believe that Alternative E adequately 

addresses the issue of livestock grazing and 

provides the best management for the 

administration of livestock grazing within the 

Planning Area.

Public Comments (GM-14):

Comment: We support the withdrawal of 

livestock from the upland allotments where 

livestock use compacts soils, accelerates erosion, 

and has adverse downstream impacts. (Center 

for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #1573, letter #338)

Comment: Alternative E Section 2.6.1.8 

Rangeland Management - Management Actions: 

"Limit Livestock grazing in riparian areas to 

winter season (November 1 to March 1)" Such a 

broad generalized management guideline as 

quoted above, unnecessarily hinders or limits 

management options and ignores site specific 

goals, conditions or management needs. 

Additionally this statement, speaks to only one 

part of the 3 components listed in the "Desired 

Future Conditions" section just above it in the 

document and additionally it is only one of 

numerous possible management actions. By 

listing this one 'action' it appears to weaken the 

box of tools available for management and 

support some old 'dogmas' about how to manage 

and maybe even reflect the agenda of some 

public. Healthy riparian areas need healthy 

uplands (watersheds) and eliminating summer 

use in riparian areas could make it more difficult 

to best manage upland, the degree of difficulty 

will be affected by existing fences and 

availability of other water resources. The length 

of time livestock graze riparian areas is as 

important if not more important than the season 

of use. This becomes significantly important 

when infrastructure is not highly developed such 

as few or no cross-riparian fences and little 

upland watering facilities exist. Season long or 

any winter grazing can be harmful if it 

substantially reduces vegetation which could 

catch silt and absorb energy from high spring 

flows. Growing season long grazing is obviously 

detrimental to riparian areas, as it is to the 

uplands. Short grazing periods in riparian areas 

during the growing season that allow for regrowth are not harmful and can be beneficial. In 

addition, by not grazing during the growing 

season, the beneficial attributes of livestock 

activities such as dunging and urinating and 

breaking of the soil surface do not take place at 

the time of the years, when with moisture, there 

is good insect and microbial activity both above 

and below the soil surface. In rangeland 

management actions, maximum flexibility must 

be maintained to be creative and responsive in 

order to manage towards the goal of the desired 

future condition without the hindrance of such 

an unnecessarily broad and hindering statement 

as "limit livestock grazing winter season...". 

Could I suggest the language be: "Utilize the 

option of planning the season of use and 

longevity of exposure to livestock in order to

move each particular upland and/or its 

accompanying riparian area toward its described 

'desired future condition'. (Individual, Mayer, 

AZ - Comment: #114, letter #59)

Public Concern (GM-15): 

Respondents wanted to know why the BLM is not 

proposing a maximum average annual forage 

use rate of 35 percent or less for the entire 

Planning Area.

Response (GM-15): 

Site-specific planning, evaluation, and 

implementation of potential management actions 

are beyond the scope of this RMP and are 

addressed through the use of individual, sitespecific plans. The literature citation is narrow 

in scope and the BLM suggests the commenter 

may want to read Principles of Obtaining and 

Interpreting Utilization Data on Southwest 

Rangelands available from the University of 

Arizona Cooperative Extension for more 

information on utilization.

Public Comments (GM-15): 

Comment: Your proposal would see that 

conditions on all grazing allotments in the 
Chapter 5

811

planning area would comply with the Arizona

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

for Grazing Administration. They're supposed to 

do that anyway. I've already mentioned the 

deficiency in your livestock management 

strategy for riparian areas. In regards to the 

uplands, research has shown that average annual 

forage utilization rates in excess of 35% lead to 

resource degradation. (Holcheck 1999) Why 

aren't you proposing a maximum average annual 

forage use rate of 35% or less for the entire 

planning area‖ Literature Cited Holecheck, J.L., 

H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt. 1999. 

Grazing Studies: What We Have Learned. 

Rangelands 21(2):12-16. (Individual, Phoenix, 

AZ - Comment: #1180, letter #23)

Public Concern (GM-16): 

Respondents feel grazing should be intensively 

managed in semi-desert grassland areas (like 

Perry Mesa) for forage dependent species like 

the pronghorn.

Response (GM-16): 

The RMPs adequately address management of 

livestock grazing in areas of pronghorn antelope. 

The area in question is intensively managed in a 

cooperative manner with the grazing lessee, 

cooperative agencies, and interested publics. We 

are working in partnership with the Arizona 

Game & Fish Department, Tonto National 

Forest and other partners to develop 

management practices that sustain pronghorn 

habitat and populations in the semi-desert 

grasslands. 

Public Comments (GM-16): 

Comment: Livestock grazing harms the 

pronghorn by reducing forage species, reducing 

cover for young, and indirectly restricting 

movement across the landscape through fencing. 

Pronghorn populations are supported by the 

semi-desert grasslands of Perry Mesa and other 

areas of the Monument, and livestock grazing 

should be intensively managed in these rapidlydisappearing landscapes. (Center for Biological 

Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1578, letter 

#338)

Public Concern (GM-17): 

Respondents suggest acknowledging the 

Anderson Mesa Landscape Scale Assessment 

completed by the Forest Service in north central 

Arizona as best available science for interaction 

of livestock and pronghorn to guide livestock 

management.

Response (GM-17):

We are aware of the Anderson Mesa Landscape 

Scale Assessment and are working closely with 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department to 

jointly manage the pronghorn in the national 

monument to optimize conditions for that herd.

Public Comments (GM-17):

Comment: The Anderson Mesa Landscape 

Scale Assessment that was completed by the 

Forest Service in November of 2004 deals with 

the interaction of livestock and pronghorn in 

north-central Arizona. Protocols for improving 

pronghorn survival and recovery include 

maintaining adequate hiding cover for 

pronghorn during fawning. "We cannot state 

strongly enough the importance of hiding cover! 

Future management actions must allow adequate 

residual cover to remain on the ground through 

the fall and winter months and remain there, 

through the spring fawning season. The desired 

amount of cover is 10". That cover should be 

taken out of livestock production and dedicated 

towards healthy wildlife populations." (USDA 

2004) We expect the BLM to argue that it is not 

mandated to follow the regulations of the Forest 

Service and we agree. However, if this is the 

Department of Interiors Best Available Science 

for the same species, the draft RMP should have 

at least mentioned the inclusion of these 

management parameters. (Center for Biological 

Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1579, letter 

#338)

Public Concern (GM-18): 

Commenters suggest implementing the grazing 

decision matrix developed by the Prineville 

District. Also, they support inclusion of the 

decision matrix used in the Upper Deschutes 

RMP and language from that RMP that allows 

for voluntary buy-out.
Chapter 5

812

Response (GM-18):

There is no statutory or agency requirement to 

construct a decision matrix. Livestock grazing 

is a legitimate multiple use of public land 

authorized by the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 

and the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and is recognized as such 

by the Presidential Proclamation which created 

the national monument. By following 

established regulations, policies and procedures, 

the BLM will ensure that AFNM is managed 

consistent with the Resource Management Plan, 

the Presidential Proclamation, the multiple-use 

and sustained-yield principles of FLPMA, and 

other environmental values and objectives. 

Factors that may prevent the attainment of land 

health standards or land use plan objectives will 

be identified by Rangeland Health Allotment 

Evaluations and the NEPA analysis. 

Appropriate management changes will be made 

or new management practices implemented by 

the authorized officer to reduce current or 

potential impacts to the vegetative, soil and 

cultural resources.

Public Comments (GM-18):

Comment: The Bureau of Land Management -

Prineville District recently developed a grazing 

decision "matrix" in its Proposed Upper 

Deschutes Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (2005) to guide 

managers in making grazing decisions on the 

Upper Deschutes Resource Area. While grazing 

remains a primary use of public lands under the 

plan, the matrix also provides a mechanism for 

managers to retire grazing allotments where 

livestock grazing conflicts with other public 

values are determined to be so severe that 

grazing is no longer manageable under present 

conditions. The Upper Deschutes matrix was 

approved by Secretary Gale Norton, who found 

it compatible with her Four C's of conservation -

Conservation through Cooperation, 

Communication, and Consultation. NPLGC 

contends that a similar matrix would be 

appropriate for the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

planning area, and especially the Agua Fria 

National Monument, where conservation goals 

are prioritized over other multiple uses in the 

monument. (National Public Lands Grazing 

Campaign, Chandler, AZ - Comment: #1053, 

letter #185)

Comment: Opportunities for public lands buyout was not included in any of the alternatives. 

We direct the agency to the recently completed 

RMP for the Upper Deschutes BLM Planning 

Area in Oregon that uses an approved matrix for 

determining the potential viability of voluntary 

buy-out. By incorporating this kind of language 

in the Agua Fria/ Bradshaw Harquahala RMP, 

the BLM would be appropriately anticipating 

forthcoming legislation that would work towards 

conflict resolution. (Center for Biological 

Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1586, letter 

#338)

Public Concern (GM-19): 

Respondents feel allotments that meet the 

conditions of the Special Ephemeral Rule should 

be permanently retired. BLM should define the 

conditions (level of forage production, 

precipitation, and climatic conditions) that 

would prompt ephemeral use and discuss the 

environmental effects of ephemeral grazing.

Response (GM-19): 

Ephemeral grazing use may be authorized under 

the Arizona Standards Guidelines when 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 horses and burros); 

and

monitoring is conducted during grazing to 

determine if objectives are being met.

Public Comments (GM-19): 

Comment: The BLM should reconsider 

ephemeral use permits and instead remove 

livestock from allotments within the Bradshaw-
Chapter 5

813

Harquahala planning area within the hot desert 

biome, at elevations of less than 3500 feet, with 

less than 8 inches of annual precipitation, less 

than 25 pounds per acre of forage, less than 5 

percent composition of desirable plants, and 

lacks improvement potential with rangeland 

management. (Center for Biological Diversity, 

Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1584, letter #338)

Comment: Livestock grazing is an authorized 

use on these lands, and your recent evaluations 

of yearlong grazing allotments conclude that 

most of them are meeting the BLM's Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health. However, the 

Public Lands Foundation has long been 

concerned about yearlong livestock grazing 

operations on desert public lands. In 1968, the 

BLM issued a special rule that provided for 

ephemeral grazing on BLM lands in desert areas 

below 3200 feet in elevation and which receive 

less than 8 inches of rainfall. Some of the lands 

in the Bradshaw and Harquahala Areas meet this 

criteria, and if the grazing allotments have not 

yet been converted to ephemeral use, they 

should be. Most of the grazing allotments in 

these areas are not economic ranch operations. 

The "social" values of desert vegetation and 

wildlife habitat are far more important than the 

economic values of livestock production on 

these lands. At best, we believe that these low 

desert ranges should be used only for ephemeral 

grazing during the Spring months in years when 

there is abundant annual vegetation. If livestock 

grazing is to continue on lands in the higher 

elevations, the Arizona Standards for Rangeland 

Health must be met. (Public Lands Foundation, 

Arlington, Virginia - Comment: #1169, letter 

#403)

Public Concern (GM-20): 

Commenters feel there is no evidence presented 

in the Draft RMPs that winter grazing in 

riparian areas is better for the morphological or 

hydrologic conditions of riparian areas, or that 

this type of grazing will reverse the trend of 

degrading conditions. Others suggest that 

monitoring be used, rather than restrictions, to 

assess the health of riparian zones.

Response (GM-20):

Riparian management, consistent with Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health, would reduce 

the potential for damage to cultural resources 

and wildlife habitat, as well as the incidence of 

livestock trails and trampling that could reduce 

scenic values. Proven grazing management 

strategies have been and will continue to be 

implemented to protect the Agua Fria River and 

its tributaries. Growing season rest and 

utilization may be prescribed to address upland 

health issues, which could impact riparian areas.

The USDI Technical Reference TR-1737-14, 

Grazing Management for Riparian-Wetland 

Areas, gives several examples of grazing 

management strategies that can result in 

improved riparian conditions. According to 

T.R.1737-14, the winter-only grazing treatment 

has been shown to both improve riparian 

conditions where improvement is needed and to 

maintain stable, proper-functioning riparian 

conditions where they exist. As a part of the 

Standard and Guideline process to 

achieve/maintain rangeland health, the BLM has 

successfully implemented a winter season-of-use 

grazing treatment in riparian pastures on several 

AFNM allotments.

Public Comments (GM-20):

Comment: Sixty-one percent of the riparian 

areas on the Agua Fria National Monument are 

functioning at risk, with half of these either 

trending downward or without an "apparent 

trend." On the Bradshaw-Harquahala planning 

area, fifty-nine percent are functioning at risk, or 

worse. Despite years of monitoring showing 

"functioning at risk" and "degrading channels" 

in the riparian areas of the planning area, the 

agency has thus far failed to take action to 

protect these federal lands and resources, has 

thus far failed to restrict or prohibit grazing on 

the allotments, and instead advocates in the draft 

RMP an alternative that will allow grazing 

degradation to continue, albeit seasonally. There 

is no evidence presented in the draft RMP that 

winter-grazing in riparian areas is in fact any 

better for the morphological or hydrologic 

conditions of riparian areas, or that this type of 

grazing will reverse the trend of degrading 
Chapter 5

814

conditions. The idea that winter grazing will be 

better for the resource is unsupported. (Center 

for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #1560, letter #338)

Comment: The proposal to allow continued 

November-February grazing in riparian areas is 

not scientifically justified in this semi-desert 

ecosystem.(Footnote 1,2) Cattle will graze in 

desert riparian areas during the so-called "non 

growing season" because the riparian areas 

contain valuable vegetative cover (Footnote 3). 

While there, the cattle interfere with a protected 

object of the Monument. (Friends of the Agua 

Fria National Monument, Glendale, AZ -

Comment: #2103, letter #339)

Public Concern (GM-21): 

Comments were received addressing the need 

for inventory of resources to adequately 

determine the impacts of grazing. FLPMA 

requires that BLM prepare and maintain a 

current inventory of all public lands and their 

resources. Therefore, the BLM should inventory 

and monitor all of the ecological resources on 

the monument and within the broader Planning 

Area before selecting alternatives that could 

degrade these resources.

Response (GM-21):

We believe the RMP has met both the spirit and 

intent of FLPMA and has met the legal, and 

regulatory obligations for a land use plan.

Public Comments (GM-21):

Comment: FLPMA also requires that BLM 

prepare and maintain a current inventory of all 

public lands and their resources. 43 U.S.C. 

1711(a). BLM has failed to keep current 

inventory data on many resources of these public 

lands including, for example, the springs and 

riparian areas in each of these allotments, as 

evidenced by the scant treatment of these 

resources in the draft EIS. The BLM should 

inventory and monitor all of the ecological 

resources on the Monument and within the 

broader planning area before selecting 

alternatives that could degrade these resources. 

The draft RMP admits that the BLM has 

incomplete information regarding the health of 

these lands including, but not limited to, the 

status of soils, special status species, water 

resources, riparian vegetation, and springs and 

wetlands. Without a clear understanding of the 

current status of these public lands BLM cannot 

make a rational decision about continued 

grazing in these allotments. BLM's failure to 

maintain a current inventory of these resources 

violates both the spirit and letter of FLPMA. 

(Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #1554, letter #338)

Public Concern (GM-22): 

Commenters feel the issue of grazing 

management was identified as a significant 

scoping issue, but it is not reflected in Table E1. In addition, no summary of grazing 

management, monitoring, current conditions 

and trends, levels of grazing, recent actual use, 

or suitability and capability analysis were 

included in the document. 

Response (GM-22): 

Collaboration with the public in the 

development of this plan was actively sought by 

the BLM in the development of the RMP. The 

document provides for a full range of 

Alternatives that may have some specific 

management actions that may impact grazing 

operations depending on the alternative. These 

Alternatives and resultant actions were 

developed in public process, and take into 

consideration that individual grazing 

permittees/lessees would oppose such actions if 

they impacted the individuals operation. 

However, such the Alternatives must still be 

considered and analyzed, and addressed issues 

that were raised during the public participation 

processed. Site-specific planning and evaluation 

will address individual grazing allotment 

management.

Public Comments (GM-22): 

Comment: As a preliminary matter, we note 

that Table 3 in Appendix B of the draft RMP (p. 

704-706) shows that the issue of grazing on 

these lands was of significant concern to the 

commenting public. Despite this, rangeland 

management was not highlighted in Table E-1 as 

a key component. For both planning areas, 
Chapter 5

815

numerous comments requested that the impacts 

of grazing be evaluated. In spite of this, no 

summary of grazing management, monitoring, 

current conditions and trends on the allotments, 

levels of grazing, recent actual use data, nor 

suitability and capability analysis were included 

in the draft RMP. A more thorough explanation 

of current conditions and future projections 

would have better met the request for evaluating 

grazing impacts, as well as met the disclosure 

requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. The BLM should include this level 

of analysis in the final EIS, in order to 

adequately inform the decision-maker and the 

public. (Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, 

AZ - Comment: #1549, letter #338)

Public Concern (GM-23): 

Respondents feel Standards and Guides 

assessments are too few and too subjective to be 

of value in properly managing grazing or 

achieving ecological improvement as these 

assessments do not require long-term, on-theground, quantifiable monitoring data. BLM 

should provide information concerning how 

many assessments have been done and how often 

they are reviewed because without consistent 

monitoring and scientifically validated studies, 

BLM can not determine the impacts of grazing. 

The Draft RMPs should also include 

management actions in cases of noncompliance, specifying the time-line for 

compliance and the penalties (including 

livestock removal) that may result.

Response (GM-23):

The BLM conducts Standards and Guidelines 

(S&G) assessments in the regular course of 

business. BLM intends to complete all S&G 

evaluations on allotments by 2009. Monitoring 

is conducted in accordance with methods and 

protocol outlined in the Interagency Monitoring 

handbook endorsed by USDI and USDA. 

Federal grazing regulations provide 

administrative remedies for unauthorized 

livestock use, and failure to meet Standards for 

Rangeland Health. S&G evaluations, as well as 

any other Phoenix District grazing data are 

available, upon request, for public review in the 

Public Room, Phoenix District, 21605 N. 7th 

Avenue, Phoenix AZ, 85383.

Public Comments (GM-23):

Comment: This draft RMP repeatedly mentions 

the Land Health Standards, but these 

assessments do not require long-term on-theground quantifiable monitoring data. Indeed, the 

assessment can be done solely on the basis of 

ocular monitoring. There are no mandatory 

comparison data that shows composition, cover, 

and trend within grazing exclosures and on 

utilized plots that would indicate whether or not 

livestock grazing is adversely affecting 

resources. Without consistently monitored, 

scientifically valid studies, the BLM cannot 

determine the impacts of grazing. Further, the 

standards for rangeland health are minimum 

standards that every grazing allotment should 

meet and should trigger corrective actions when 

they are violated. These Land Health 

Assessments define the minimum ecological 

condition, but do not necessarily indicate that 

grazing is no having a detrimental impact on the 

allotment. These standards do not consider the 

impacts of livestock grazing on the 

archeological record, the visual and scenic 

resources, the impacts to recreation, the impacts 

on wildlife, or the adverse impacts to wilderness 

values. We object that the RMP relies so heavily 

on the minimal evidence that these assessments 

provide, and we believe this over-reliance fails 

the FLPMA and BLM rules. In places where 

vegetation communities differ from target ranges 

for indicator species, solutions should be 

proposed, and these solutions should invariably 

include the utter cessation of livestock grazing. 

The BLM surely has the information it needs to 

understand that livestock have long-term 

detrimental impacts in upland and riparian areas. 

The BLM should certainly seek to obtain on-theground, quantifiable information to prove or 

disprove this, and the complete absence of 

mandatory monitoring in the plan is just one of 

its many shortcomings. (Center for Biological 

Diversity, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #1567, letter 

#338) 

Comment: Objective, quantifiable monitoring is 

essential for effective management (Christensen 

et al. 1996). Monitoring must be done frequently 
Chapter 5

816

and properly, and in the absence of consistent 

monitoring, livestock should be excluded. 

Permittee monitoring should be allowed only 

where there is a system of objective checks in 

place and a strong history of permittee 

compliance. Monitoring should be conducted 

every year before, during, and after the 

monitoring season. Resources including soils, 

plant communities, TES and rare species, water 

quality, and management compliance should all 

be regularly and consistently checked by the 

Forests. All results should be publicly available, 

and reports summarizing those results should be 

prepared. The draft RMP should also include 

management actions in cases of non-compliance, 

specifying the time-line for compliance and the 

penalties- including livestock removal-that may 

result. (Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, 

AZ - Comment: #1566, letter #338)

5.4.12 MINERAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Public Concern (MI-1): 

Commenters urge no increase in restrictions to 

exploration and production of mineral resource, 

including casual mining. They feel the 

DRMPs/DEIS greatly underestimates the 

mineral potential of the area and downplays the 

importance of salable minerals for use in 

construction industry. Others oppose opening 

areas that are currently withdrawn from mineral 

entry or favor more restrictions on current 

mining activities. 

Response (MI-1):

As central Arizona urbanizes, the value of public 

lands for recreation and open space increases 

exponentially. The Proposed Alternative 

attempts to balance the needed production of 

commodities from public lands (primarily 

minerals and livestock) with the requirements to 

protect sensitive plant and wildlife resources, 

cultural resources, and opportunities for diverse 

recreation experiences. To find this balance, 

some limitations will be proposed to almost all 

users. It is BLM‘s opinion that the Proposed 

Alternative offers the greatest diversity in 

opportunities for recreational experience while 

maintaining sufficient production of 

commodities to meet demand, while also 

protecting the sensitive resources we are 

required to protect.

The mineral potential data came from our files 

and Arizona Geological Society, and was 

complied in a resource assessment done by 

Ninyo and Moore, who were subcontractors to 

the original planning consultant we hired. 

We understand the importance of saleable 

minerals to the construction industry, and in the 

case of production of sand and gravel, State and 

private land are closer to the market and have as 

much or more potential for production as BLMmanaged land, especially within the life of our 

plan. We recognize also that BLM supplies over 

60 percent of the crushed stone to the Phoenix 

Metro area. The impact analysis conducted in 

document Section 4.17 reflects the value of 

these commodities and assesses the potential 

affects of our management decisions on their 

production.

The Proposed Alternative has few new 

restrictions to mining over what is currently in 

place. The designated ACECs and allocations 

for wilderness characteristics would be available 

for prospecting and development of both 

locatable and leasable minerals. Though they 

would be closed to mineral material disposal, 

(salable minerals) most of these areas are distant 

to markets and development of mineral materials 

would be an economical risk.

Public Comments (MI-1):

Comment: Arizona State mineral rights also 

exists in the Baldy Mountain Area and I 

question the group that proposed the BLM right 

to take valuable Arizona State mineral royalties 

away with very little research completed. Please, 

do the research, before you propose the taking. 

If you do not know, mineral royalties will be 

paid to the Arizona State children attending 

schools in the northern Phoenix Area. 

(Southwest Cinders LLC, Gilbert, AZ -

Comment: #1059, letter #345)

Comment: There should be more closures to 

mining, as in Alternative D. For example, the 
Chapter 5

817

headwaters of the Hassayampa River, around the 

existing wilderness areas (Harquahala, 

Hummingbird Springs, Big Horn) should be 

protected from future mining activities. These 

areas contain important Bighorn Sheep habitat, 

and should be given the Special Area 

Designations shown in Alternative D (Map 2-

68). (Individual, Tucson, AZ - Comment: #830, 

letter #319)

Public Concern (MI-2): 

Commenters would like BLM-managed land

along New River in Maricopa County to be 

closed to any mineral development, especially 

material sales. If BLM does authorize this use, 

the community would like stipulations.

Response (MI-2):

The subject parcel is not a ―reconveyed‖ parcel, 

so that particular management prescription 

would not apply. However, compliance to Land 

Health Standard #2 for maintaining riparian in 

proper functioning condition would apply. Also, 

any proposal to develop the parcel for mineral 

materials would require an Environmental 

Analysis, which would include analysis of dust, 

traffic, noise, and other social and environmental 

factors. Though we could not treat the action as 

if it were in a non-attainment area if it is not, 

dust and other air quality impacts would need to 

be addressed through the required NEPA 

document.

Public Comments (MI-2):

Comment: Alternative E - Page 169 2.6.2.1.3 

Mineral Resources Management Leasable, 

Saleable & Locatable Minerals -BLM parcels in 

the New River Area EAST of I-17 are open for 

salable, locatable, and leasable minerals. We 

recommend closure of the BLM lands along 

New River in Maricopa County to salable, 

locatable, and leasable minerals. We particularly 

object to salable minerals such as sand and 

gravel because: -The dust and traffic associated 

with such activity is hazardous to the health of 

people living near by and even more so to the 

children attending the New River Elementary 

School. -If this activity is allowed in spite of 

overwhelming community objection, we ask that 

the BLM work with ADEQ and Maricopa 

County Environmental Services Department to 

install and operate air pollution monitors near 

by. -Also, if this activity is allowed, we ask that 

the BLM work with Maricopa County on traffic 

controls or routing to protect children coming 

and going from school. -Although it is outside 

the PM-10 designated area, this area should be 

treated the same as a PM-10 area due to the 

population growth and school. -The disturbance 

would alter the pristine physical characteristics 

of this riparian area. (New River/Desert Hills 

Community Association, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1531, letter #393)

Comment: Note: Page 169 says ―Open Lands 

that have been reconveyed to the Federal 

Government and managed by BLM to mineral 

material disposal under applicable laws, except 

on the floodplain of riparian areas.‖ It was 

unclear whether this includes the area referred to 

along the New River. (Individual, Black Canyon 

City, AZ - Comment: #1305, letter #281)

Public Concern (MI-3): 

Commenters would like a map or some 

description of how allocations and designations 

would ―restrict‖ mineral exploration and 

development because they feel the mineral 

potential maps were deficient. Additionally, 

they would like more information about how 

resource allocations restrict mineral exploration 

and development. 

Response (MI-3):

Maps 2-10, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-

63, 2-64, 2-65, 2-80, 2-81, 2-82, and Tables 4-4 

and 4-7 are all intended to provide information 

as to how allocations and designations would 

impact mining. Other allocations and 

designations (for actions such as Visual 

Resources Management, management for

wilderness characteristics, and ACECs) may 

restrict some mineral activity and those impacts 

are discussed in Section 4.17. Site-specific 

impacts would vary due to the particular design 

of a mining operation and the particular site

characteristics and those site-specific impacts 

would be analyzed at the time of the proposal. 

The Surface Resource Act of 1955 states: ―Any 

such mining claim shall also be subject, prior to 
Chapter 5

818

issuance of patent therefore, to the right of the 

United States, its permittees, and licensees, to 

use so much of the surface thereof as may be 

necessary for such purposes or for access to 

adjacent land: Provided, however, that any use 

of the surface of any such mining claim by the 

United States, its permittees or licensees, shall 

be such as not to endanger or materially interfere 

with prospecting, mining or processing 

operations or uses reasonably incident thereto.‖

Public Comments:

Comment: In addition, proper characterization 

of the location of these materials, their proximity 

to the market and accurate projections of what it 

would take to meet those demands is needed. It 

appears that many of the known deposits are not 

represented on the maps or have not been 

considered and the Department of Mines and 

Minerals, the Arizona State Geological Survey, 

United States Geological Survey and other 

affected industry parties should have been 

consulted. (Arizona Rock Products Association, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1477, letter #355)

Comment: It would be helpful to not only 

depict areas of high and moderate mineral 

resource potential (as shown on some of the 

maps) but also how the other resource 

allocations restrict exploration and development 

of the same. (Department of Mines and Mineral 

Resources, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #162, letter 

#61)

Public Concern (MI-4): 

Commenters are strongly opposed to 

Alternatives, especially C and D, which include 

their claim block area located within the Baldy 

Mountain Area of Critical Concern (ACEC). 

The ACEC would close the area to mining claim 

location and severely limit any mineral 

exploration and development. Further 

restrictions may impact 20 active mining lode 

claims, some of which contain substantial 

quantities of high-value, filter-aid perlite.

Response (MI-4):

All mining claims are valid until proven 

otherwise. The creation of an ACEC would not 

invalidate mining claims. A validity examination 

may show that the claims are invalid but this is 

speculation, and BLM will not speculate on the 

validity of a mining claim. It is true that the 

land within an ACEC is withdrawn from mineral 

entry (no new mining claims may be located), 

however existing claims may be developed in 

accordance with regulations. For example all 

development greater than casual use would 

require a plan of operations. Wilderness 

characteristics do not prohibit mineral 

development on valid existing claims. 

Public Comments (MI-4):

Comment: Southwest Cinders LLC controls 20 

active mining lode claims in section 3 of T 6 N, 

R 1 W and within the area of the DRMP/DEIS. 

Recent studies and analytical data support the 

properly having substantial quantities of high 

value, filter-aid perlite. We strongly support 

Alternative A allowing the BLM lands to remain 

open for exploration and development. 

(Southwest Cinders LLC, Gilbert, AZ -

Comment: #1061, letter #345)

Comment: We [Southwest Cinders LLC] are 

strongly opposed to the other alternatives, 

especially C and D, which include our claim 

block area located within the Baldy Mountain 

Area of Critical Concern (ACEC). The ACEC 

would close the area to mining claim location 

and severely effort any mineral exploration and 

development. Alternative E would include our 

claim block into a wilderness characteristic 

designation area prohibiting mineral 

development. (Southwest Cinders LLC, 

Scottsdale, AZ - Comment: #1494, letter #276)

Public Concern (MI-5): 

Comments were received addressing areas with 

known locatable minerals and the need to open 

mining activities. It appears that most of the 

land north of Arizona Route 74 (Cave Creek 

Road) and around the Wickenburg area would 

be essentially closed to mining activities. Yet 

development is occurring in these areas, and 

nearby construction materials would be an 

asset. 
Chapter 5

819

Response (MI-5):

The areas mentioned would remain open to 

leasable, locatable, and saleable minerals. 

Allocations for Visual Resources Management, 

to maintain wilderness characteristics, or for 

other resource focus, may place some constraints 

on the way a mine operation would be 

conducted, especially in terms of site 

reclamation. However, mineral exploration and 

development would continue to be possible. 

See also information on the The Surface 

Resource Act in MI-3.

Public Comments (MI-5):

Comment: It appears that most of the land north 

of Arizona Route 74 (Cave Creek Road) and 

around the Wickenburg area would be 

essentially closed to mining activities. Yet 

development is occurring in these areas, and 

nearby construction materials would be an asset. 

Already the State is feeling the shortage of 

mineral materials, and construction costs of 

projects currently underway are rising as a 

result. Besides, the Wickenburg area, as well as 

other sectors in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area have been known to have 

locatable minerals in the past, and since the 

prices of many minerals and metals has gone up 

in the last few years, the potential for further 

activity in the area has increased. However, 

under the proposed RMP it seems, mining in 

those areas would not be possible. (Department 

of Mines and Mineral Resources, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #165, letter #61)

Public Concern (MI-6): 

Commenters addressed the reference to two 

existing mining claims currently being used for 

events by "prospecting clubs." Respondents are 

concerned that with the increasing price of gold, 

these could well become commercially viable 

operations.

Response (MI-6):

BLM will not speculate on the validity of a 

mining claim. All mining claims are presumed 

valid until proven otherwise.

Public Comments (MI-6):

Comment: Reference is made in the Executive 

Summary to two existing mining claims, which 

are currently being used for "events" by 

"prospecting clubs." This is misleading since as 

recognized on page 413, volume 1, these are 

actually small-scale gold placer mining 

operations. With the price of gold today these 

could well become commercially viable. 

(Department of Mines and Mineral Resources, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #163, letter #61)

Public Concern (MI-7): 

Respondents express concerns in regards to the 

disposal proposed in Alternative E of the 

cyanide leach mine development found in T1.2 

N., R3 W. Sec. 332. Respondent feels even 

though much correspondence has been 

exchanged, BLM has not been willing to discuss 

in person the many issues their management 

has allowed and therefore, issues presented in 

the plan would be resolved in a similarly poor 

manner.

Response (MI-7): 

All mining claims are presumed valid until 

proven otherwise. The site is presently being 

reclaimed, and mining claimants must comply 

with 3809 Regulations.

Public Comments (MI-7): 

Comment: My main interest, and concern is a 

cyanide leach mining development that is onehundred fifty yards above my home of thirty 

years. The permitted claims are found in T1.2 

N., R3 W. Sec. 32. Gold Crown Mill Site 

(B.L.M. AMC #69463) and Copper Crown Lode 

Claim (B L.M , AMC #270960). These illegal 

claims are in the BHMP area, and is on BLM 

land that is slated for sale in alternative "E", 

section 2.6.2.1.1, "Lands and Realty", page l68 

of Volume #l, (map 2-78). With the history of 

regulation, or the lack there of, pertaining to the 

above referenced claims, it give me much 

concern that BLM would step out from under 

the very destructive situation, that they have 

allowed Mr. Porter and T-P ltd. to perpetrate. In 

my experience ,with BLM since 1989, their 

adherence to regulations and policy has failed 

not only to address the issues raised, but has 
Chapter 5

820

made no attempt to reso1ve the very basic 

concerns. Example water and aquifer protection: 

Even though much correspondence has been 

exchanged, no BLM ranger, nor official has 

been willing to discuss, in person the many 

issues their management has allowed. I have no 

atta-boys for BLM, and how they have handled 

the protection of public lands, and in turn 

endangered my family and property. Knowing 

how my situation has been handled, I must 

assume this is typical response, and that issues 

of BMHP would be resolved in a similar 

fashion, which is not a good thing. (Individual, 

Kirkland, AZ - Comment: #2049, letter #161)

Public Concern (MI-8): 

Respondent would like mining in high quality 

scenic vistas, such as the Belmont Mountains to

end.

Response (MI-8):

Existing claimants in the area have the legal 

right to develop these claims. The area is not 

closed to mineral entry and as such the claims 

may be staked and mineral development may 

proceed in accordance with Federal regulations 

and State laws. 

Public Comments (MI-8):

Comment: Minerals Management: All mining 

within high quality scenic vistas like the 

Belmont Mountains should end. In all these 

categories, we support Alternative D for the 

HMMU. We feel the negative effects of mining 

on wildlife and on scenery make Alternative E 

inappropriate. (Tonopah Area Coalition, 

Tonopah, AZ - Comment: #1120, letter #347)

Public Concern (MI-9): 

Respondents the feel BLM did not adequately 

complete the report on metallic and industrial 

minerals in the DRMP/DEIS.

Response (MI-9):

The minerals section of the Affected 

Environment was based on information provided 

by the Arizona Geological Society and the 

recent (20 years) history of mineral activity 

within the Planning Areas.

Public Comments (MI-9):

Comment: I would also like to question the 

poor report completed by the BLM committee 

on metallic and industrial minerals in the 

DRMPs/DEIS. Metallic and Industrial Minerals 

are strategic part of the economic well being and 

defense of the United States of America. Also 

the prices of many of these strategic minerals 

and fuel materials such as oil and coal have 

increased in prices that are not reflected in the 

DRMP/DEIS. These strategic industrial minerals 

such as perlite, are imported in large amounts 

from Greece. I question the ability of 

governmental officials to find, locate and 

develop many of the minerals we use in 

everyday life. Ore deposits exists where they 

occur in the earth and not where the Sierra Club 

or Green Peace, conveniently wants them to be 

located. (Southwest Cinders LLC, Gilbert, AZ -

Comment: #1060, letter #345)

Public Concern (MI-10): 

Respondents feel the current Draft RMPs limit

mine permitting and appears to shift the 

responsibility to meet market demand on State 

and private lands. Additionally, respondents 

note that according to the list of preparers, no 

mining organization was consulted or had input 

into the preparation of the RMP and EIS except 

one civil engineering firm. 

Response (MI-10): 

Mining was considered in every plan decision 

and alternative. We recognized the industry 

changes as mineral prices change and demand 

during the last 20 years may not have 

represented demand in the future. For this 

reason, we have avoided mineral closures as 

much as possible. In some allocations and 

designations that remain open to mining, good 

mine reclamation will be required to meet the 

Desired Future Conditions.

It is BLM‘s opinion that access to minerals is 

sufficiently maintained to meet projected future 

demand. Maps showing the location of 

materials and mineral potential were acquired 

from the Arizona Geological Survey and from 

BLM files. Though the intent is not to ―shift the 

responsibility to meet market demand on State 
Chapter 5

821

and private lands‖, those lands are closer to the 

market and may be better able to meet demand 

for the life of this plan. BLM only supplies 

small quantities of sand and gravel. This is in 

part due to the fact that the better deposits are 

not on BLM-administered lands and are found 

on State and private lands.

Public Comments (MI-10): 

Comment: In looking through the list of 

preparers of the volumes, volume 2, pages 636 

through 639, it is clear that no mining 

organization was consulted or had input into the 

preparation of the RMP and EIS. There is one 

civil engineering firm, but they were primarily 

contributors to the "geological and 

paleontological resources". Possible mining in 

the area received little consideration. 

(Department of Mines and Mineral Resources, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #168, letter #61)

Comment: The DRMP/DEIS of the BradshawHarquahala area greatly underestimates the 

mineral potential of the management area. The 

DRMP/DEIS of the Bradshaw-Harquahala area 

was initiated near the end of a 25 year downturn 

in the market of mineral commodities. Mineral 

commodity prices follow long-tern trends and 

the commodity cycle has recently charged 

dramatically. Since 2002 to 2003, mineral 

commodity prices have sky-rocketed, and have 

in many cases doubled and even tripled. This 

trend has been projected to continue for at least 

the next 15 to 20 years. In addition, the draft 

report downplays the importance of salable 

minerals for use in the construction industry. 

(Individual, Apache Junction, AZ - Comment: 

#1885, letter #391)

Public Concern (MI-11): 

Respondents want to know how it was 

determined that ―8 to 10 million cubic yards of 

saleable mineral materials‖ was projected 

considering that approximately 40,000 acres 

would be available for disposal by sale or 

exchange.

Response (MI-11): 

We reviewed the Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development Scenario for saleable minerals 

presented in the beginning of document Section 

4.17 and believe it to reflect, as best we can 

determine, the future of that commodity within 

the Planning Area within the life of the plan.

Public Comments (MI-11): 

Comment: In Section 4.17 the Draft RMA 

proposal recognizes there are "many locations 

for saleable mineral resources" yet the report 

sets a seemingly arbitrary number of an 

"estimate 20 new saleable mineral pits or 

quarries." What would the breakdown be (i.e. 

sands and gravel vs. decorative or other non 

metallic minerals) and how was it determined 

that "8 to 10 million cubic yards of saleable 

mineral materials" was projected considering 

that approximately 40,000 acres would be 

available for disposal by sale or exchange. 

(Arizona Rock Products Association, Phoenix, 

AZ - Comment: #1475, letter #355)

Public Concern (MI-12): 

Commenter states that the document does not 

show that consideration has been made for the 

timeliness and benefits of mining reclamation on 

the multiple use and sustain yield of the land..

Response (MI-12): 

Mine reclamation was considered in the

development of the Draft RMPs/EIS and plays 

an important role in helping BLM meet 

management objectives. In most cases, even in 

places where a mine operation might be 

incompatible with the goals for an allocation or 

designation, mining was left open because good 

reclamation during the mining process, and 

especially when mining ceases, can still achieve 

the Desired Future Conditions for an area.

Public Comments (MI-12): 

Comment: It is not apparent from the document 

that consideration has been given to the fact that 

after the mining is complete, the affected areas 

are reclaimed. In fact, the reclamation work 

generally proceeds as the mining progresses. 

After reclamation is completed the restoration is 

often as good as before and sometimes even 

better. A good example of the type of 

reclamation being performed by reputable 
Chapter 5

822

mining companies these days is that of Peabody 

Western Coal Company. After reclamation the 

local shepherds are able to graze 20 times more 

sheep on the same land as they were able to do 

before mining. Similarly, ranchers can graze 

more cattle. (Department of Mines and Mineral 

Resources, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #167, letter 

#61)

5.4.13 TRAVEL

MANAGEMENT

Public Concern (TM-1): 

An array of comments was received addressing 

the liberal legal and physical public access for 

motorized recreation, natural resource 

development, and the ability of the AGFD to 

maintain and implement water and habitat 

projects. Some respondents feel there is a need 

to protect our environment from additional 

access, while others feel more access is critical 

for recreation and natural resource activities. 

BLM needs to have the flexibility to make 

appropriate adjustments where needed.

Response (TM-1): 

The management proposed in the plan addresses 

the need for adequate access, and at the same 

time attempts to meet BLM‘s mandate to 

manage for multiple use and sustained yield as 

defined in FLPMA. The route evaluation and 

designation process that implements motorized 

recreation and other forms of recreational 

transportation decisions, will ultimately 

determine the route network and how it meets 

motorized access needs for recreation.

Issues surrounding access across private lands 

are sensitive for the BLM to handle. As a 

manager of public lands, we must attempt to 

balance the desire of the public to access public 

land with the desires of adjoining land owners. 

BLM has little authority to gain access for the 

public across private land. Many times, 

interested publics will have more success 

gaining access for themselves (either as an 

individual or a group), rather than waiting for 

BLM to negotiate access for the general public. 

Negotiating and securing legal public access can 

take years. Meanwhile, public demand for 

access continues to increase. 

The location of routes for both motorized and 

non-motorized use is an issue that will be 

considered during the route 

evaluation/designation. BLM will plan to meet 

Land Health Standards and consider sensitive 

areas and habitats during the evaluation process, 

including riparian-wash areas. BLM will 

attempt to identify conflicts that are occurring or 

are likely to occur to a level that makes sense. 

Part of managing recreation is letting the public 

know what experiences may be available in a 

given location and providing for an array of 

different opportunities. Not all opportunities 

will be available in all places. We believe this 

plan addresses the many forms of recreation 

done on BLM-managed lands.

Public Comments (TM-1): 

Comment: I do not want to see the BLM or 

other agencies open up as many miles of trails 

because they do not have the resources to 

manage their lands effectively. This seems to be 

the easy way out. (Individual - Comment: 

#1161, letter #331)

Comment: The Arizona RAC is currently 

working with BLM to develop Guidelines for 

Management of OHV Use that should help BLM 

manage OHV use. Access is critical for the 

many public recreation and natural resource 

activities that will take place on these lands, and 

BLM needs to have the flexibility to make 

appropriate adjustments where needed. 

(Individual, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #473, 

letter #204)

Public Concern (TM-2): 

Commenter feels that the statement in Section 

2.7.1.6, ―Maintain low interaction among 

users,‖ needs to be clarified or defined. This 

could mean many different things and could 

result in severe restrictions on access.

Response (TM-2): 

We believe that the statement taken in the full 

context of the discussion of wilderness 

characteristics adequately explains the intention 
Chapter 5

823

and provides management direction for the area 

in question. Route designation for the area will 

be addressed specifically in travel management 

plans, and every management unit identified in 

the RMP and will be a public process.

The phrase ―low interaction of users‖ refers to 

goals set to maintain the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) classification of semi-primitive 

non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized. In 

an area with  ̳low interaction of users,‘ one could 

expect to meet others occasionally and evidence 

of humans would be present. Table S defines 

group size and number of contacts to be 

expected. 

Public Comments (TM-2): 

Comment: Concerning Section 2.7.1.6 Page 

223, column 2, last bullet, commenter states, 

―Maintain low interaction among users. Needs to 

be clarified/defined. This could mean many 

different things and could result in severe 

restrictions on access.‖ (The State of Az Game 

and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1383, letter #401)

Public Concern (TM-3): 

Respondent states that access for all proposed 

uses including natural resource development is 

critical; therefore, they request that BLM take 

into consideration appropriate adjustments to 

the plan where needed to take into account 

current growth projections. 

Response (TM-3): 

Access for commercial resource development is 

guided by the lands and minerals sections of this 

plan. Specific mineral withdrawls can be found 

in Chapter 2 in the Section 2.6.2.1.3. All 

mineral material sites are discretionary and will 

be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Public Comments (TM-3): 

Comment: As you know, access is also critical 

for all of the proposed uses in the RMA 

including natural resource development, ARPA, 

therefore; requests that BLM take into 

considerations how that would make appropriate 

adjustments to the plan where needed to take 

into account current growth projections. 

(Arizona Rock Products Association, Phoenix, 

AZ - Comment: #1474, letter #355) 

Public Concern (TM-4): 

Commenters suggest additional text be added to 

the Castle Hot Springs Management Unit which 

clarifies that livestock grazing and OHV use are 

multiple uses and that there must be vehicular 

access to BLM-managed land by the grazing 

permittee or lessee. Further, BLM should close 

to motorized traffic the route between Hells 

Canyon Wilderness and the lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

This route should be managed as a hiking and 

equestrian trail.

Response (TM-4): 

The Castle Hot Springs Management Unit will 

be managed for multiple use including livestock 

grazing and OHV use. The Hieroglyphic 

Mountains area will continue to be accessible for 

OHV recreation. No closures to grazing are 

proposed within the Management Unit. 

Access to range facilities is important and BLM 

intends to work with permittees to maintain 

access for range management. At the time of 

inventory, the route forming the south border of 

Hells Canyon Wilderness was in a reclaiming 

state. In BLM‘s route inventory, reclaiming is 

defined as:

―Has not been used enough so that there is intact 

woody vegetation growing in it that would be 

damaged by the passage of a vehicle. Erosion 

and vegetation may block way, cause vehicle to 

get stuck and/or cause damage to vehicle.‖ 

Based on your comments, we reviewed this 

route. Conditions have changed marginally 

since the inventory. We removed the statement 

to close this route as a management action from 

the plan. We will address this route during the 

route evaluation and further consider the 

condition and access limitations in context with 

the desired future conditions of this area.

Public Comments (TM-4): 

Comment: The following text (in red italics) 

needs to be added, -M&J Bigler 2.7.3.1 
Chapter 5

824

Management Units GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT OF MUs Castle Hot Springs 

Desired Future Condition. The values of open 

space and scenic and visual quality are 

emphasized. Recreational, cultural, and 

biological assets are maintained. The lands 

within the MU are managed for multiple uses, 

including livestock grazing and OHV use. The 

MU's scenic and natural landscape settings are 

maintained while offering visitors a diverse 

array of recreation opportunities,... (Individual -

Comment: #814, letter #288)

Comment: The following needs to be 

addressed. There must be full vehicular access to 

these portions of BLM land by the Grazing 

Permittee or Lessee! Changes to the text below, 

that would reflect this additional access, need to 

be included. 2.6.2.2.2.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics Within the Castle Hot Springs 

MU, 6,550 acres would be allocated to maintain 

or enhance wilderness characteristics as shown 

on Map 2-89. Desired Future Condition A 

natural landscape retained between the Hells 

Canyon Wilderness and Lake Pleasant Regional 

Park. This area complements the landscape and 

recreation opportunities in the regional park and 

the entire Castle Hot Springs SRMA. Provide 

high-quality primitive recreation and solitude in 

a region otherwise allocated to motorized 

recreation. Preserve desert tortoise habitat, 

sustain riparian areas, and maintain the area's 

value for use by a wild burro herd. Maintain 

semi-primitive motorized recreation setting 

along designated routes. Manage areas beyond 

1⁄2 mile from a designated route for a semiprimitive non-motorized setting. Management 

Actions Limit motorized vehicle use to 

designated routes. Close to motorized traffic the 

route between Hells Canyon Wilderness and the 

lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics (the route along the 

wilderness boundary that is reclaiming). 

Manage this route as a hiking and equestrian 

trail. Develop up to five non-motorized trails 

and trailheads to link with the Hells Canyon trail 

system and ultimately to the Maricopa County 

trail system. Emphasize hiking and equestrian 

opportunities in recreation management 

planning. Allocations for Visual Resource 

Management designed to achieve Desired Future 

Conditions are discussed in section 2.6.2.2.2.7. 

(Individual - Comment: #815, letter #288)

Public Concern (TM-5): 

Respondent requested the language in the draft 

RMP should be changed to include the unstated 

but intended words ―motor vehicle‖ whenever 

―access‖ refers to motor vehicle access.

Response (TM-5): 

Within the document, access management 

includes both motorized and non-motorized 

travel routes. Even non-motorized recreationists 

get to the places they access using motor 

vehicles. We have tried to be clear if we have 

made decisions that distinguish between 

motorized and non-motorized access.

Public Comments (TM-5): 

Comment: Throughout the draft RMP, the word 

"access" is almost always used to denote motor 

vehicle access. By not explicitly identifying that 

"access" refers to "motor vehicle" access, the 

draft RMP contributes to the false impression 

that human access to public lands in the 

Planning Area, and particularly in the 

Monument, is severely limited. The fact is that 

human access to the Monument is virtually 

unlimited. Hikers and horseback riders have 

unfettered access throughout the entire 

Monument, and many "closed" Monument roads 

will be adapted to support non-motorized users. 

Motor vehicles, although they have thousands of 

miles of routes available to them, do not have 

unlimited access to the Monument. 

Recommendation: The language in the draft 

RMP should be changed to include the unstatedbut-intended words "motor vehicle" whenever 

"access" refers to motor vehicle access. Not 

being explicit about what kind of access is being 

discussed will continue to contribute to public 

confusion regarding public "access" to 

Monument lands. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2216, letter #343)

Public Concern (TM-6): 

Respondent is concerned about how routes are 

identified and/or defined as reclaimed.
Chapter 5

825

Response (TM-6): 

The subject route would show no to little 

evidence of use, it could have bushes or trees 

growing in the center berm or in the tread, the 

route could be completely washed out, or the 

route could be covered with grass or ground 

cover. Field inventory crews conducting OHV 

route inventories carefully assessed each route 

on the ground. The reclaiming classification 

was only rarely applied (see also the definition 

of reclaiming in TM-5).

Public Comment (TM-6): 

Comment: Concerning Section 2.6.2.2.2.9 Page 

186, column 2, 2nd paragraph, ―...Routes 

identified as reclaimed would be closed...‖

Commenter states, ―How are roads 

identified/defined as reclaimed?‖ (The State of 

Az Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1366, letter #401)

Public Concern (TM-7): 

Respondent is requesting all references 

to―routes‖ should be changed to ―roads.‖ BLM 

should use the definition for ―road‖ as derived 

from the description of ―roadless‖ in the 

legislative history of FLPMA and 43 CFR 

19.2(e) which defines road as ―An improved 

road that is suitable for public travel by means 

of four wheeled, motorized vehicles intended 

primarily for highway use.‖

Response (TM-7): 

The terms road and route are both used 

consistently throughout the document and both 

are defined in the glossary. The definition you 

reference comes from the committee report on 

FLPMA and is specifically addressing the 

definition of a road in the context of wilderness 

inventory as conducted under section 601 of 

FLPMA. That section of FLPMA has been 

determined to have expired, and the wilderness 

inventory has been completed. The definition of

a road you reference does not apply. The 

definition used for a road in the Glossary of our 

document comes from the BLM 9100 manual. It 

says that a road is ―A linear route declared a 

road by the owner, managed for use by lowclearance vehicles having four or more wheels, 

and maintained for regular and continuous use.‖ 

In addition, BLM has recently created the 

following definition for a Primitive Road: ―A 

linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive 

or high clearance vehicles. Primitive roads do 

not normally meet any BLM road design 

standards.‖ 

Public Comments (TM-7): 

Comment: Any decision that allows motorized 

and mechanized vehicle use off of a "road," 

under a standard, legal, definition of what 

constitutes a "road" could be construed as 

arbitrary and capricious, and abuse of discretion, 

or otherwise not in accordance with the law 

under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) of the Administrative 

Procedures Act of 1946. The legal definition of 

road for the BLM public lands is derived from 

the definition of "roadless" in the legislative 

history of FLPMA: The word "roadless" refers 

to the absence of roads which have been 

improved and maintained by mechanical means 

to insure relatively regular and continuous use. 

A way maintained solely by the passage of 

vehicles does not constitute a road. (H.R. Rep. 

No. 94-1163 at 17 (1976)). In addition, the Code 

of Federal Regulations (43 C.F.R. 19.2(e)) 

establishes the following definition: An 

improved road that is suitable for public travel 

by means of four wheeled, motorized vehicles 

intended primarily for highway use. Thus, tracks 

created by the repeated passage of vehicles, 

people, wildlife, or anything else, standing 

alone, do not constitute a road; mechanical 

improvement, whether by hand tools or power 

machinery, is necessary. In other words, "use" or 

"nonuse" of a given route is inadequate 

information to determine what is or is not a 

"road." Single track trails or other trails also do 

not meet the definition of a road. Another 

definition for road is available from IM No. AZ2004-021: 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. It is 

curious that this definition was developed 

recently to achieve consistency in BLM 

planning across Arizona (partially in regards to 

transportation planning), and yet it is not 
Chapter 5

826

referenced anywhere in the draft RMP. We are 

aware that BLM has previously stated that it 

does not recognize the definitions of "road" that 

we cite under H.R. Rep. No. 94-1163 at 17 

(1976) and 43 C.F.R. 19.2(e). However, it 

seems that the agency should at least use its own 

definition specifically authorized by the state 

director for the Arizona BLM. 

Recommendation: We recommend that the 

agencies include a consistent definition of 

"route" and "road" throughout the draft RMP, 

and revise their alternatives to only include 

routes that meet the definition of "road" (based 

on the applicable law and guidance cited above) 

in the range of alternatives for the Monument. 

(The Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2223, letter #343)

Comment: For all alternatives regarding the 

Monument, we recommend that all references to 

"routes" for travel by motorized or mechanized 

vehicles be amended to refer to "roads," not 

"routes" in order to comply with the 

Proclamation. This concern was originally 

brought forth in a letter submitted by the 

Arizona Wilderness Coalition and Sierra Club 

Grand Canyon Chapter submitted on July 9th, 

2002 (incorporated by reference). The 

Proclamation articulates an unequivocal 

obligation to apply an accurate and precise 

definition of "road" in the Monument in order to 

meet the requirements of the statement: "For the 

purpose of protecting the objects identified 

above, the Secretary of the Interior shall prohibit 

all motorized and mechanized vehicle use off 

road, except for emergency or authorized 

administrative purposes." [emphasis added] (The 

Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2222, letter #343)

Public Concern (TM-8): 

Numerous comments were received requesting 

power line utility corridors be opened to multiuse (including OHV) as an additional 

transportation route.

Response (TM-8): 

Motorized use of access roads for utility rightsof-way is normally allowed unless there are 

concerns of public safety or a threat of 

vandalism to the utility facilities. BLM does not 

normally issue rights-of-way with exclusive use 

to the permittee. However, in the case of special 

uses, such as might be authorized through 

Special Recreation Permits, it is common 

practice to coordinate with holders of rights-ofway to assure the event doesn‘t represent 

particular public safety issues, facility risk, or 

potential right-of-way holder liability beyond 

casual use. In some cases, use of utility right-ofway access roads may be denied for Special 

Recreation Permit events.

Public Comments (TM-8): 

Comment: Request powerline utility corridors 

be open to multi -use (including OHV) as an 

additional transportation route (Comment: #198, 

form #2)

Comment: Using existing power line roads 

should be considered for motorized access also 

(Arizona Trail Riders, Prescott, AZ - Comment: 

#291, letter #268)

Public Concern (TM-9): 

Commenters feel access to the Agua Fria River, 

by limiting it to only people who can hike on foot 

is unfair, it is improper, and it does not allow for 

multiple use because some people are physically 

unable to hike. Others feel that restricting 

access to some places would help preserve the 

beauty of the area and encourage people to be 

more physically active.

Response (TM-9): 

Certain areas may remain accessible by 

motorized vehicle. However, to ensure the 

protection of cultural resources as prescribed by 

the Proclamation, most routes leading to cultural 

sites will be closed. In addition, cultural sites 

near routes will be monitored for vandalism or 

other human caused impacts. If necessary, 

routes can be mitigated, including closure, to 

protect cultural resources and other sensitive 

areas.

Public Comments (TM-9): 

Comment: 2.6.1.4 Cultural Resources page 159 

DFC Please allow for OHV trails to continue off 

main routes for those who can not hike, for 
Chapter 5

827

access to Cultural resources described in this 

section. (Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle 

Coalition, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1624, 

letter #261)

Comment: Considering that so many Americans 

are overweight, I would think that a hike to view 

an attraction would be more beneficial than 

viewing the same attraction from the seat of 

their vehicle. I am not much of a hiker myself, 

but it would be worth it to me if it meant seeing 

a place without the ugliness of a blacktop road. 

(Individual, Eugene, Oregon - Comment: #804, 

letter #295)

Public Concern (TM-10): 

Commenter would like to see all existing roads 

designated for multiple uses.

Response (TM-10): 

Routes inventoried will be evaluated and 

designated according to the process outlined in 

Appendix D. We encourage you to give input 

when routes are evaluated. 

Public Comments (TM-10): 

Comment: I would like to see all of the existing 

roads, you know, for multiple use, whether its 

hiking, horseback riding, motorcycling, ATVs, 

Jeeps. I think they should all be multiple use. 

(Individual - Comment: #85, letter #105)

Public Concern (TM-11): 

Commenters are concerned about proliferation 

of the existing paths and road networks to help 

maintain the natural character of the land and 

minimize future impacts.

Response (TM-11): 

Routes are specifically being designated in the 

National Monument in this plan to prevent route 

proliferation. Routes signed on the ground and 

marked on official maps will be the only 

available routes for public use.

Routes in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area will be evaluated and designated within 

five years of the completion of this plan. Route 

designations will be subservient to the 

allocations in this plan. Route designation is 

intended to manage vehicle use and associated 

impacts. For example, areas allocated for 

wilderness charactistics management may have 

fewer routes or none at all designated for 

motorized or non-motorized use. Conversely, 

Special Recreation Management Areas and 

Recreation Management Zones identify the 

recreation niche and market to be served which 

will guide route designation. These benefitsbased recreation niches and markets can be 

found in Appendix S. 

Public Comments (TM-11): 

Comment: I spend a lot of time up in the Agua 

Fria National Monument, before it was a 

national monument actually. And the one 

concern that I suppose I have is proliferation of 

the existing paths and road networks, for a 

variety of reasons. Usually it's a, you know, off 

road vehicles and stuff like that. I like that as 

much as anybody but I've seen what's happened 

already in the Lake Pleasant area along the Agua 

Fria where its pretty much trashed because of 

people creating new roads so my comment 

would be to try and find a balance on the leaner 

side and I've only begun to see what road 

networks you've suggested but, I figure there 

going to be a certain percentage of proliferation 

no matter what because its so hard to control. So 

if you start on the smaller side, the proliferation 

will happen. If you start off with an extra 

hundreds of miles of roads, the proliferation I 

think will go there too. (Individual, New River, 

AZ - Comment: #118, letter #72)

Comment: The lands in 

Dewey/Humboldt/Mayer, the BLM chose to 

retain them in the public ownership. Its going to 

take a lot of future planning and effort with 

those communities to make sure they can be 

managed to maintain the natural character that 

they already have. The same out here in the 

Harcuvar region. There's a lot of routes out here, 

if we don't try and maintain or try and limit new 

route development because it is a flat region, 

we're going to end up with problems in creating 

those natural lands as well. (Arizona Wilderness 

Coalition, Prescott, AZ - Comment: #1102, letter 

#76)
Chapter 5

828

Public Concern (TM-12): 

Respondent feels BLM should have a Park 

Ranger or a GIS specialist on-the-ground to 

conduct its survey of routes for OHV use. 

Response (TM-12): 

The route inventory was conducted on-theground by trained personnel using high-quality, 

state-of-the-art, global positioning systems. The 

data was submitted to a qualified GIS specialist 

to clean up and compile the data into a 

comprehensive inventory database.

Public Comments (TM-12): 

Comment: I am also concerned that the BLM 

conducts a current survey of routes for OHV 

usage. Using ten and twenty year old data 

suplimented by satalite photos is not an effective 

method of surveying these routes. A Park 

Ranger/ GIS specialist needs to be on the ground 

with GIS technology to do this job accurately. 

Routes that where once commonly used have 

become abandoned and new routes appear from 

illegal riding. The costs of an accurate survey of 

routes may seem to expensive in the beginning 

although the Bureau will incure greater expenses 

in the long run when route signing and 

protection is implimented and enforcable. 

(Individual - Comment: #1162, letter #331)

Public Concern (TM-13): 

Respondents feel designation of routes based on 

current inventory could miss a lot of routes in 

washes or canyon bottoms that are being used; 

therefore, they want inventory kept ―open‖ and 

flexible for identification of further routes. For 

example, Old Harquahala Road should be 

inventoried as a motorized route.

Response (TM-13): 

We recognize there may be some places that are 

currently being used that have been overlooked 

on the route inventory. Any route proposal, 

whether from the current inventory or from 

future requests, will be evaluated based on 

compatibility with natural and cultural resources 

and management objectives. In that way, future 

route proposals can be identified and analyzed 

for consideration, regardless if it shows on the 

current inventory or not.

Public Comments (TM-13): 

Comment: 2.6.2.2.4 Harquahala Management 

Unit Route request....See Map Old Harquahala 

Road was not inventoried. This trail would make 

an excellent trail opportunity allowing OHV use 

to bypass private property on existing loop and 

create a looped trail opportunity for Motorcycle 

and Mountain bike recreationists. (Arizona OffHighway Vehicle Coalition, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1686, letter #261)

Comment: The designation of routes in the 5-

year future apparently will be based upon the 

data base of the current route inventory. I would 

advise the BLM that there are many routes that 

are used by 4-wheelers that may not have been 

acknowledged in this inventory as washes and 

rocky canyon bottoms are frequently used. Some 

that may not look used are used occasionally as 

they are important "challenges" for 4-wheelers. 

It is important that these "options" be 

acknowledged and be available as they can be 

utilized with minimal to no impact to the 

resources. It is recommended that this "route 

inventory" be kept "open" and flexible for 

further identification of routes during the 

process of designation. (Verde Valley 4 

Wheelers, Cottonwood, AZ - Comment: #1957, 

letter #400)

Public Concern (TM-14): 

Several route-specific comments were received 

addressing keeping the Lost Trail in Tule 

Springs open, designating a route in the Baldy 

Mountain and Castle Hot Springs areas, 

opening the short spur near Tiger Canyon for 

administrative use only, improving the trail from 

Cottonwood Gulch to four-wheel-drive 

clearance, and creating small portal areas at 

existing Wilderness entry points for nonmotorized routes in Wilderness Areas. 

Response (TM-14):

Your comments on specific routes will be 

retained for consideration during the route 

evaluation and designation process as part of 

travel management planning. In the Tule Creek 
Chapter 5

829

ACEC, the only routes identified for closure in 

this plan are those inside the fenced area. The 

jeep route inventoried, identified as Lost World 

Trail, has been inventoried to the water gap on 

Tule Creek and your use will be considered. 

The route suggested as a long distance 

connection between the Lake Pleasant and 

Bumble areas is acknowledged and will be 

considered during route evaluation. The 

suggested administrative use only route 

identified near Tiger canyon will be considered 

at that time as well. 

Public Comments (TM-14):

Comment: Concerning Alternative E: KEEP 

OPEN THE LOST TRAIL IN TULE SPRINGS 

The Rock Rats in addition to the supported 

comments would ask that you consider 

removing the closure in Alternative E for the 

Tule spring area. It would close a trial that has 

been in our clubs history for some time. The 

Lost world trail just north of the Tule spring has 

been our initiation trail run for some time. The 

loss of this trial would impact our club. (AZ 

RockRats, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #178, letter 

#265)

Comment: Route request Please see Castle Hot 

Springs/ Black Canyon City maps for requested 

OHV trail East side of Forest Service area. Long 

Distance Trail Connectivity to the Motorized 

trail systems in the Baldy Hill area and the 

Castle Hot Springs trail system require a 

designated route. This trail runs North from 

Cottonwood Gulch area (near Williams Mesa) 

Connecting existing trails into one that continues 

to Bumble Bee. Request it be at minimum an 

ATV /Motorcycle route, would request 

improved to high clearance 4wd. A OHV/ 

multiuse staging area would be created with 

information Kiosk and area map near Turkey 

Creek at Bumble Bee. The short spur near Tiger 

Canyon would be open for Administrative use 

only. (Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1641, letter #261)

Public Concern (TM-15): 

Respondents want BLM to make provisions in 

the plan for identifying and constructing new 

motorized routes, specifically through the Tule 

Creek ACEC. Additionally, BLM needs to take 

into consideration the affects of urban sprawl, 

lost access, and decreasing opportunities for 

motorized recreation when making management 

decisions. Others feel that no new roads should 

be created.

Response (TM-15): 

Document Section 2.7.3.7 has been modified in 

this document to include the description of a 

procedure for addressing new route proposals.

Public Comments (TM-15): 

Comment: I am hoping that the BLM will close 

dead-end routes and build no new routes or 

trails. (Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: 

#790, letter #228)

Comment: [I would support Alternative E with 

my amendments below:] Motorized OHV is 

growing at a very rapid rate. All the alternatives 

talk about how trails can be closed, we need to 

outlined how news trails can be established. I 

often hear that over use of a trail can cause 

excessive erosion, which down the line can 

cause trail closures. Our current trail system is 

not adequate, and with the growth at the rapid 

rate it is going at we will soon find adverse 

affects if we don't identify a process in which 

new trails can be identified, classified, added to 

inventory and put into use. I know I brought this 

up at the meeting I attended and was told that if 

we told you what we wanted it would be 

included, however I still do not see it in any of 

the Alternatives. Please add this to Alternative 

E. (Individual - Comment: #755, letter #293)

Public Concern (TM-16): 

Respondents are requesting that BLM return the 

Black Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Trail to 

just hiking and equestrian use.

Response (TM-16): 

The Black Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Trail 

RMZ (Alternative E) will be established within 

the Black Canyon Special Recreation 

Management Area The Black Canyon Trail 

(BCT) RMZ will provide high-quality, nonmotorized hiking, riding and mountain biking 

opportunities. The BCT is a dedicated non-
Chapter 5

830

motorized trail, but some trail segments still 

share alignments with roads, primitive roads and 

other roads. The BCT, upon establishment in 

1969 and on-the-ground identification between 

1969 and 1990, was for the most part situated on 

existing roads. Little new trail construction was 

attempted. Thus as we find today, the BCT is a 

―hodgepodge‖ of motorized and non-motorized 

segments.

BLM and the Black Canyon Trail Coalition 

(BCTC) are building new trail in areas where 

shared use in ongoing. This will move more and 

more of the trail to non-motorized status. We 

hope to have most of the trail non-motorized 

within 10-years of plan approval. The BLM and 

the BCTC are working diligently to fund, plan, 

survey, stake, construct, and maintain the BCT 

as a well-designed and sustainable nonmotorized trail, extending from the Carefree 

Highway to the Prescott National Forest north of 

State Highway 69.

Public Comments (TM-16): 

Comment: So my comments are going to be 

directed to the Black Canyon Management Unit 

and specifically the area that is going to be 

managed foe wilderness characteristics. I would 

just asked that the BLM return the Black 

Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Trail to just 

hiking and equestrian use (Individual, Prescott, 

AZ - Comment: #26, letter #90)

Comment: This is a specific comment to the 

Black Canyon trail which is assigned as a pack 

trail and has been over taken by ORVs. I would 

like to see it returned to a pack trail as it gives a 

great opportunity for people on foot and 

horseback to see the monument. Again this is the 

Black Canyon Trail and is assigned as a pack 

trail and is currently being used as an ORV trail. 

(Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: #730, 

letter #231)

Public Concern (TM-17): 

Respondent wants to know why so much time is 

spent with non-motorized uses in the Table Mesa 

area when it is dominated by OHV users. There 

are plenty state parks, national monuments, and 

current hiking areas devoted to non-OHV use 

and therefore, OHV trails open at Table Mesa 

should be kept open.

Response (TM-17): 

BLM attempts to manage lands for a variety of 

uses. The Black Canyon Trail, a 62-mile, multiuser trail system under development in the 

Bradshaw Mountain foothills of central Arizona 

has won national recognition. Many miles of 

existing trails are currently shared by motorized 

and non-motorized users. The non-motorized 

trail is being separated from the motorized 

double track trail, after which both the 

motorized and non-motorized trails will be 

managed as part of the overall trail system. This 

trail was designated in 1969 by the Secretary of 

the Interior, prior to the high level of OHV use 

in the area. This area is allocated as a Special 

Recreation Management Area in this plan. The 

market and nich are identified as motorized 

recreation with camping related OHV use in 

Appendix S.

All rockcrawling routes receiving significant and 

recognizable use at the time of route inventory 

were recorded. The designation of rock 

crawling routes will be done in a process 

separate from route evalution/designation. 

Where appropriate, rockcrawling sites will be 

identified and managed as Recreation Sites. 

These sites will not be for use by stock fourwheel-drive vehicles, thus protecting resources, 

public safety and your desired experience.

The route inventory available at the time of draft 

printing is included in Chapter 3.

Public Comments (TM-17): 

Comment: I see a host of verbiage devoted to 

non-motorized uses, yet in the last 23 years I 

have yet to see anyone hiking the areas or trails 

in the Table Mesa Road area. Why are we 

spending so much time with non-motorized uses 

of the area when this is dominated by OHV 

users‖ We have plenty of state parks, national 

monuments, and current hiking areas devoted to 

non-OHV use. This area is perfect for its current 

usage of OHV and should be the dominate use 

described. (Individual - Comment: #754, letter 

#293)
Chapter 5

831

Comment: The Table Mesa Road area is a very 

popular recreation place for OHV users, and my 

family and friends enjoy rock crawling on the 

old mining roads and Terminator, Predator, Raw 

Deal and several others. I would hate to lose 

access to these popular trails. (AZ Rockrats, 

New River, AZ - Comment: #510, letter #257)

Public Concern (TM-18): 

Respondent wants BLM to consider if a ROW 

through the Cross Y Ranch could be opened so 

people could have access to the canyons in that 

part of the monument.

Response (TM-18): 

Acquiring access for the public through the 

Cross Y ranch was not considered. It was not an 

issue during scoping nor was it a management 

goal to provide improved access from the south. 

Maintaining the Wild and Scenic River 

suitability is a primary goal, and allowing 

vehicle access up the canyon would be 

inconsistent with this goal. There is a route 

accessible from Coldwater Canyon Road where 

you can park and walk into the canyon.

Public Comments (TM-18): 

Comment: Also, the Cross-Y Ranch, inside the 

monument. Very few people can go through 

their to access the nice canyons in the 

monument, and I would like them also to see if 

they could entertain an idea to work out an 

agreement or a right-of-way or something for 

access for people to go through the ranch or 

create a road on the edge of the ranch bordering 

BLM land or something for people would be 

able to access to get into those great canyons, 

otherwise, you have to drive around, like on 

Bloody Basin Road and then you have to hike 

down the canyons to get into the area, because 

you cant get through the ranch. That's my 

comments an outside of that, I think plan E is the 

one I recommend. (Individual, Black Canyon 

City, AZ - Comment: #24, letter #91)

Public Concern (TM-19): 

Commenter is concerned that the road off of 

Coldwater Canyon Road in Black Canyon City 

is getting a lot of ATV traffic; therefore, it 

should be closed now.

Response (TM-19): 

Actions related to implementation of the

Resource Management Plans would be initiated 

after a decision document has been signed. 

However, if resource damage is occurring, 

please report it to the Agua Fria National 

Monument office at (623)580-5500.

Public Comments (TM-19): 

Comment: There is currently access to the 

southern part of the monument in Black Canyon 

City off of coldwater canyon road. I hike this 

area several times a week and have been almost 

run over by atv's several times. Monument signs 

are posted within 1/8 mile of this old cattle gate 

and this area is getting high use by ohv and is a 

direct route into the southern area of the 

monument. Looking at the map this road would 

be closed but I feel signs should be posted now. 

No one I have talked to in Black Canyon City is 

even aware the monument exists and think all of 

the area is open and a free for all. The proximity 

of this access from Black Canyon City should be 

looked at now. (Individual - Comment: #310, 

letter #171)

Comment: The Access to the AFNM in Black 

Canyon City, off of Coldwater Rd. should be 

closed to all but hikers and horses. 4-wheelers, 

Quads, ATVs are destroying this already. Needs 

to be closed NOW! (Individual, Black Canyon 

City, AZ - Comment: #303, letter #182)

Public Concern (TM-20): 

Comments were received requesting BLM close 

the road to Richinbar Mine to protect the public 

and to protect pronghorn habitat.

Response (TM-20):

Pronghorn Antelope and public safety are 

important issues and were considered during the 

route evaluations. Private property access was 

also a consideration during the route evaluation 

and designation process. The gate along I-17 is 

currently locked and will be designated as 

administrative use only for public safety. We 

believe the final route designation protects 
Chapter 5

832

monument objects and allows sufficient public 

access for a variety of purposes.

Public Comments (TM-20):

Comment: The road into the Rich-in-bar Mine 

needs to be closed. This private property is no 

longer used by the owners. By allowing access 

across public land to this mine the BLM is 

opening itself up to lawsuits. There are many 

hazards to the public at this old mine. The road 

leading to it needs to be obliterated and the 

access gate along I-17 returned to ungated barb 

wire fencing. (Individual - Comment: #781, 

letter #46)

Comment: As far as road closures go, I'd like to 

see the road closed to the Richinnbar Mine. The 

reason for doing so is that this road goes through 

pronghorn fawning habitat. The pronghorn are 

an object that is to be protected within the 

Monument, its part of the Proclamation. (Grand 

Canyon Chapter of Sierra Club, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #706, letter #74) 

Public Concern (TM-21): 

Several comments were received requesting 

reevaluation of proposed route closures in the 

AFNM.

Response (TM-21): 

The route evaluation process for the national 

monument addressed motorized use of routes in 

the context of the national monument 

Presidential Proclamation. Route closures in the 

monument were deemed necessary to meet our 

management mandate given in the proclamation 

while allowing adequate motorized access to 

meet agency and public access needs. Data 

regarding the evaluation and designation can be 

viewed by the public on request in the public 

room of the Phoenix District during regular 

business hours.

The route network in the Proposed Plan was 

chosen because:

1) based on the route evaluation, 

adequately protects the resources of the 

monument;

2) reduces the routes in the monument, 

thereby reducing maintenance 

requirements to BLM;

3) reduces access to sensitive locations, 

reducing law enforcement;

4) allows a reasonable level of public use 

and enjoyment of the national 

monument while protecting the 

monument resources.

Speed enforcement on the routes in the national 

monument will be achieved primarily by 

utilizing road maintenance techniques that keep 

roads in a condition that makes higher speeds 

very difficult and unpleasant to the motorist. 

Public Comments (TM-21): 

Comment: Transportation planning in this 

rugged backcountry poses many challenges for 

the BLM to manage the area's nationallysignificant cultural resources, wildlife habitat, 

and scenic vistas. We are impressed that the 

BLM has recognized the damage that motorized 

recreation can pose to Monument resources, and 

has thus provided a limited route network in the 

preferred alternative. However, we urge the 

agency to reassess this alternative and do an 

even better job at providing a route network that 

will help the BLM protect the Monument's 

irreplaceable resources. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2213, letter #343)

Comment: The proposed closure of some of the 

identified routes in the AFNM area needs to be 

re-evaluated as many of these routes are 

important for public access especially for those 

people who may have limitations to their ability 

to hike in order to enjoy the resources with the 

AFNM. Resource conflicts and impacts can be 

mitigated if necessary with seasonal or weather 

related closures. The proposed Wilderness 

designation should not be implemented as this 

further limits public access especially for those 

with physical limitations. (Individual, Cornville, 

AZ - Comment: #1084, letter #160)

Public Concern (TM-22): 

The respondent objects to closing the roads on 

Map 2-76 in the north of Agua Fria National 
Chapter 5

833

Monument because closure will impact private 

property access.

Response (TM-22): 

These routes will be open to provide access 

between Todd/2Y Headquarters and other 

deeded lands. They are an important link 

between two of their private parcels. The route 

map presented in Alternative E has been 

modified to reflect this change. 

Public Comment (TM-22): 

Comment: I object to closing the roads on map 

2-76 in the north part of the Agua Fria N. Mon. 

See. 4 T 2 N R3E between the Todd/24 

Headquarters and the deeded 500A in Sec. 3 

which has been established as the access to my 

private land for nearly 100 yrs. I Also object to 

closing the road in Sec. 5 to my private land in 

Sec. 6 for the same reasons. (Individual, Mayer, 

AZ - Comment: #1458, letter #379)

Public Concern (TM-23): 

Respondents want BLM to keep all inventoried 

trails open to motorized use to reduce erosion of 

trails, maintain access, disperse users, and 

maintain historical use of public lands for 

competitive events. Others would like BLM to 

limit and concentrate vehicular access and close 

many existing routes to protect resources.

Response (TM-23): 

To meet the policy mandates of FLPMA it may 

be necessary to mitigate, or close some routes or 

route segments that conflict with the multipleuse and sustained-yield guidance in that law. 

However, to the extent possible, we will work 

with the public and other agencies to provide 

adequate route opportunities to meet public 

demand, including long-distance and multiagency routes that are sustainable and support 

sustainable natural and cultural resources.

Routes will be designated in accordance with the 

allocations set forth in this plan and in 

compliance with the Land Health Standards and 

other applicable laws/regulations. For example, 

areas allocated with an emphasis on vehicle 

recreation such as the Vulture Mine area will be 

more liberal in the number of routes designated 

open. Conversely, areas allocated to maintain 

wilderness characteristics will have the number 

of routes within them limited or completely 

closed. Routes will be designated as described 

in Appendix D.

Concerns regarding capacity to provide 

sufficient mileage for a growing population of 

Off-Highway Vehicle users is a valid one. As 

the number of people seeking an OHV 

recreation experience increases, so does the need 

for available land and management of these 

additional people. BLM‘s budget to manage 

recreation is not increasing at the same rate as 

the demand. Current and future riding area 

demands can be accommodated through a 

variety of solutions including increased 

opportunities on private, State and County lands. 

Recreational routes, including parallel routes 

with recreational value, will be retained to the 

extent feasible with regard to erosion, conflict, 

maintenance cost and compliance with this plan. 

BLM is mandated to provide for a wide range of 

uses while maintaining important wildlife 

habitats and landscapes. Specifically, 

maintaining Desert Tortoise habitat for  ̳no-netloss of quality and quantity‘ and soil/visual 

resources are increasingly difficult. 

Furthermore, BLM manages for compatibility 

with adjoining land ownership to the extent 

practical, looking forward for the duration of 

this plan. There are many competing uses of 

public land, one of which is access for OHV use. 

The public is encouraged to participate in the 

route evaluation/designation process which will 

determine the location and number of miles of 

route available for use.

Public Comments (TM-23): 

Comment: Please limit and concentrate 

vehicular access in all areas covered by the 

plan... and while I approve of plans to limit 

traffic to existing roads, I would like to see 

many existing routes closed. (Individual, 

Laveen, AZ - Comment: #741, letter #304)

Comment: The volume of ATV and OHV users 

is growing daily. Any closures will simply 

increase the impact on those roads/trails left 

open. The more available trail systems the less 

impact each trail will receive. If the majority of 
Chapter 5

834

land is not left open for Public use, managing 

the open areas will be more difficult. As well as 

attempting to keep the public out of the closed 

areas will not be cost effective. (Arizona ATV 

Riders - Comment: #180, letter #262)

Public Concern (TM-24): 

Commenters feel BLM will have to address the 

management conflict in the Slate Creek area to 

allow long distance trail continuity because 

OHV use in this area out-weighs non-motorized 

use and will only increase in the future. 

Planning a designated long-distance, motorized 

trail route similar to the Black Canyon Trail will 

mitigate future conflicts between users and 

address resource issues. Additionally, BLM 

should keep long distance trails open to Tonto 

National Forest and other agency lands, 

working to make sure motorized access is not 

―boxed-in,‖ which will help mitigate adverse 

effects, such as air pollution.

Response (TM-24): 

Management of motorized recreation in the 

RMPs/EIS considered long-distance 

connectivity and dispersed use. There are 

certain Recreation Management Zones where the 

primary focus of recreation management will be 

motorized recreation. But almost every other 

area will contain motorized routes designated 

and maintained for dispersed, motorized 

recreation, and they may also have facilities 

such as parking and/or staging areas to facilitate 

recreation use and management. The intention 

of allocating some areas to motorized recreation 

was not to ―box in‖ the activity, but rather to add 

focus in management of some areas to the 

overall dispersed motorized recreation use. In 

the monument, protection of monument 

resources to comply with the Proclamation is the 

first consideration in evaluating and designating 

routes. Long-distance connectivity is also a 

consideration in evaluating the overall network 

that will be designated.

The current BCT plan calls for either multi-use 

trail segments or parallel motorized and nonmotorized trail segments. Over the long term, it 

is BLM‘s goal to have the BCT non-motorized. 

BLM will consider, along with our public and 

agency partners, designation of long-distance 

motorized routes within the Black Canyon 

Corridor. These routes will provide longdistance riding opportunities for four-wheel 

drives and ATVs. The routes will also 

potentially connect to U.S. Forest Service routes 

and BLM-managed lands within the Lake 

Pleasant and Hieroglyphic Mountain areas.

The location, design, and construction of the 

Black Canyon Trail are being done in 

collaboration with the Black Canyon Trail 

Coalition. For more information on the trail and 

the Coalition, please see the website at 

http://www.bctaz.com/index.html.

Public Comments (TM-24): 

Comment: You will have to address the 

management conflict in the Slate Creek area to 

allow long distance trail continuity for this 

designated long distance trail route. You need to 

plan for this transportation corridor. Today, 

OHV use in this area out weights non-motorized 

use and will only increase in the future. Planning

a Designated long distance Motorized trail route 

similar to the BCT and promoting similar to the 

BCT will mitigate future conflicts between users 

and address resource issues. (Arizona OffHighway Vehicle Coalition, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1693, letter #261)

Comment: This plan doesn't offer long distance, 

connecting trails for motorized recreation. The 

trails need to be dispersed, not boxed in on small 

tracts of land. (Individual, Kearny, AZ -

Comment: #230, letter #213)

Public Concern (TM-25): 

An array of comments was received requesting 

that access be maintained for unlicensed OHV 

use, including a connecting trails system to 

other adjoining lands.

Response (TM-25): 

A portion of routes in the Planning Area require 

licensing. It is the jurisdiction of the State of 

Arizona and local county or municipal 

governments to establish vehicle and driver 

licensing requirements. BLM cannot guarantee 
Chapter 5

835

long-term availability of routes for unlicensed 

OHV use. 

Public Comments (TM-25): 

Comment: We request that unlicensed OHV use 

have a connecting trails system to other 

adjoining Lands for long distance trail 

connectivity. (Whiplash Motorsports, Phoenix, 

AZ - Comment: #1725, letter #389)

Comment: Please keep access to trails open to 

non-licensed OHV use. (Individual, Prescott, AZ 

- Comment: #521, letter #238)

Public Concern (TM-26): 

Numerous comments were received requesting 

the area just off of I-17 and Bloody Basin Road 

be restricted to street license use only.

Response (TM-26): 

Bloody Basin Road on the both east and west 

sides of I-17 are Yavapai county maintained 

roads. In AFNM, Yavapai county maintenance 

ends about one-quarter mile east of Horseshoe 

Ranch. Vehicles must comply with County and 

State laws, including proper licensing while on 

the maintained portions of these roads. East of 

Horseshoe Ranch, BLM will offer OHV users to 

act responsibily and know the rules of the road; 

therefore, a licensing requirement may be 

unnecessary at this time. Signing, mapping, and 

placement of kiosks will provide the basic level 

of information necessary for the public to act 

appropriately. 

Public Comments (TM-26): 

Comment: Restrict to street licensed use only 

[just off I-17 and Bloody Basin road]. (Arizona 

Motorcycle Racing Association, Chandler, AZ -

Comment: #565, letter #258)

Public Concern (TM-27): 

The section on Public Access does not state if 

non-street-legal OHVs are allowed in AFNM 

and the respondents would like clarification.

Response (TM-27):

Vehicles that are not ―street legal‖ are allowed 

on all routes designated as open to motor 

vehicles in the AFNM final route designation. 

The exception is county maintained roads where 

licensing is required by Yavapai County.

Public Comments (TM-27):

Comment: This section does not state if nonstreet legal OHV's are allowed in AFNM, please 

clarify. (Whiplash Motorsports, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1724, letter #389)

Public Concern (TM-28): 

Respondents support motorized travel in washes 

and request that travel in washes be considered 

no different than travel on any other route, 

unless the wash traverses areas that cannot be 

mitigated to protect. They ask that if a wash 

needs to be closed, a bypass be created to allow 

continued use of important transportation 

corridors for both competitive and noncompetitive OHV use. Other respondents would 

like BLM to close all washes (except in some 

cases for short crossings of major routes) to 

motorized vehicle travel to help protect the 

washes from the spread of noxious weeds, 

prevent easy access to cultural sites, reduce 

disruption to sensitive wildlife, and protect the 

serenity of these areas.

Response (TM-28): 

Motorized vehicle travel is occurring in washes 

in many places now. Washes (dry and wet) can 

have riparian values; provide food, shelter and 

thermal cover for wildlife; and act as wildlife 

travel corridors. OHV use in some washes can 

cause bank erosion and vegetation damage, 

while OHV travel in other washes may have 

little adverse effect. 

We recognize that washes may be a necessary 

segment of some routes, they may provide the 

shortest and most practical route between some 

places, they produce less dust, have few erosion 

related problems, and require little or no 

maintenance. Washes are fun to ride by both 

equestrian and motorized methods, represent a 

major recreational asset, and some wash bottoms 

may contain little plant life.

 

All of these factors will be considered when 

evaluating the use of washes as OHV travel 
Chapter 5

836

routes. Where vehicle routes in washes 

constitute an important part of the transportation 

flow and they do not conflict with other 

resources or desired resource objectives, they 

can be retained as a designated part of the route 

network. In fact it is likely that many routes will 

be designated in washes. However, past 

experience has shown that unregulated OHV use 

degrades vegetation, soils and wildlife habitat, 

including the channels and banks of washes. 

Public Comments (TM-28): 

Comment: I hope you will limit the ORV use 

because it can cause a range of problems, such 

as spreading noxious weeds, allowing vandals 

too-easy access to cultural sites, disrupting 

sensitive wildlife and destroying the serenity 

that many of us go to these areas for. Please 

protect the springs, streams, and rivers by 

limiting motorized access. These riparian areas 

are relied upon by wildlife. (Individual -

Comment: #1542, letter #300)

Comment: WASHES: At least in regard to the 

Vulture Mountain area, we feel there are 

absolutely no valid reasons to close washes. 

Most of them have very very little vegetation 

growing in them in the parts that are subject to 

being riden on and what few plants that are 

growing there are duplicated on the banks or in 

the narrower unrideable parts of the washes. Nor 

does riding in them affect animals. We have 

seen more deer in the last 2 or 3 years than we 

had in the previous seven. As for cattle, our 

experience is uniform that they never run--just 

stand and stare at us. Any tire marks in washes 

are erased by the 1st good rain. In fact, riding in 

the washes causes the least permanent change in 

the environment of any riding off paved roads. 

We are thoroughly familiar with Box Wash, Mill 

Wash, Syndicate Wash, Jackrabbit Wash, Star 

Wash and Hartman Wash as well as most of the 

smaller ones, and can see no sign of permanent 

damage on any of them. (Individual, Prescott, 

AZ - Comment: #1967, letter #57)

Public Concern (TM-29): 

Respondent thinks mitigation needs to be looked 

at very closely before route closure is 

considered.

Response (TM-29): 

We agree with the comment regarding 

considering other options before closing routes. 

A discussion on mitigation can be found in 

section 4.25 and a route specific mitigation list 

in Appendix T. 

Public Comments (TM-29): 

Comment: A couple things on route 

designations, I think mitigation needs to be 

looked at very closely before closure is 

considered. There's a lot of ways to mitigate a 

route or re-route, and do that and that'll work a 

lot easier. (Individual, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#66, letter #82)

Public Concern (TM-30): 

Several comments were received requesting the 

highest protection for the Management Area by 

limiting off-road vehicle use to existing roads 

and trails and closing roads and trails in 

sensitive areas, such as pronghorn habitat.

Response (TM-30): 

BLM agrees that OHV use on designated routes 

promises the optimum opportunity to maintain 

sustainable OHV recreation opportunities and 

minimize conflict between competing uses.

Public Comments (TM-30): 

Comment: If roads are not greatly improved, 

and OHV's are restricted to current roads, I 

would think problems would be minor. 

(Individual, Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: 

#1946, letter #353)

Comment: Please include in the final EIS the 

highest protection for the Agua Fria and 

Bradshaw-Harquahala management area. To me, 

high protection means limiting off-road vehicle 

use to existing roads and trails, and even closing 

quite a few roads and trails in sensitive areas, 

such as pronghorn habitat, for example. ATV's 

are really fun, but I far prefer the long-term 

benefits of protecting natural areas. (Individual, 

Prescott, AZ - Comment: #837, letter #310)
Chapter 5

837

Public Concern (TM-31): 

Respondents believe that throughout the 

document in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area, the word designated should be 

removed when references are made to limiting 

vehicles to ―designated‖ routes and replaced 

with ―inventoried.‖

Response (TM-31): 

The OHV allocation is ―Limited To Designated 

Routes‖ even though we might ―temporarily‖ 

designate all inventoried routes as open until the 

route evaluation and designation process can be 

completed. The allocation of ―Limited to 

Designated Routes‖ in our Resource 

Management Plan does not mean that a route 

designation process be complete at the time of 

plan signature. Route designation is an 

implementation action that would be required in 

places with the ―Limited to Designated Routes‖ 

allocation. Current BLM policy is to complete 

route designations within 5 years of plan 

signature.

Public Comments (TM-31): 

Comment: An area of particular concern is 

within the discussions of route designations. 

Chapter 2 (common to all alternatives section 

2.7.3.8 and corresponding Travel Management

sections for each alternative) states specific 

routes will be designated as opened, closed or 

limited in a formal and public evaluation process 

(Travel and Transportation Management Plan) 

occurring within five years after the RMP is 

finalized. However, in the Travel Management

section for each Management Unit in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area (BHPA), it 

states, "... Unit would be allocated as a limited 

use area, with motorized and mechanized 

vehicle uses limited to designated routes (Map 

2-16)." Map 2-16 only shows areas designated 

as open, closed or limited, not inventoried 

routes. This implies there will be no routes 

designated as open. We believe this statement 

should read "... Unit would be allocated as a 

limited use area (Map 2-16) with motorized 

vehicle uses limited to inventoried routes (Map 

3- 21 to Map 3-26 as appropriate)." We believe 

that throughout the document (within the 

BHPA) when references are made to limiting 

vehicles to "designated" routes, the word 

designated should be removed and replaced with 

"inventoried". It is our understanding the route 

designation process will occur during the Travel 

and Transportation Management Plan, and at 

this time vehicles will only be limited to 

inventoried routes within the BHPA. (The State 

of Az Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ 

- Comment: #1350, letter #401)

Public Concern (TM-32): 

Section 2.7.1.6 of the RMP states: ―Motorized 

vehicle routes within lands allocated to maintain 

or enhance wilderness characteristics would be 

designated in the RMP and shown on maps.‖ 

The process of designating routes in the RMP in 

and around areas with wilderness 

characteristics was not made public and the 

respondents feel this is inappropriate. All routes 

in the Planning Area should be considered 

simultaneously and no pre-decisions should be 

made in this RMPs.

Response (TM-32): 

BLM wanted to show a route network in the 

Preferred Alternative for both allocations to 

maintain wilderness characteristics and in 

ACECs so the public could comment on it. 

However, there was insufficient time to do an 

adequate route evaluation process and the routes 

were not shown. The statements you refer to 

(and in other places it might have occurred in the 

Draft document) were errors not caught before 

publication. They have been removed from the 

Proposed RMPs/ Final EIS.

Public Comments (TM-32): 

Comment: Also in section 2.7.1.6 the RMP 

states, "Motorized vehicle routes within lands 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics would be designated in the RMP 

and shown on maps". The process of designating 

routes in the RMP in and around areas with 

wilderness characteristics was not made public 

as BLM has consistently told the public the 

route designation process would not occur inside 

the RMP. We feel this is inappropriate and all 

routes in the planning area should be considered 

simultaneously and no pre-decisions should be 

made in this RMP considering BLM did not 
Chapter 5

838

make the public aware of this. This statement 

may be a typo in the document and if so please 

correct this in the final. Also please refer to 

February 17th, 2005 letter sent by AZ 

Wilderness Coalition, The Sierra Club Grand 

Canyon Chapter, and The Wilderness Society 

for further comments on the management of 

wilderness characteristics (attached for your 

easy reference). (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2264, letter #343)

Comment: Concerning Page 300, Row 4, Alt E

470, Alt B and E, commenter states, ―Impacts 

...would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B." (Alternative B states that routes 

would be reduced by 82 miles) Location Chapter 

2 Statement (No routes proposed to be closed at 

this time)‖ (The State of Az Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1401, 

letter #401)

Public Concern (TM-33): 

BLM should consider in route designation: (1)

routes available to ―permitted use‖ to organized 

clubs who have demonstrated 

―responsibility;‖(2) ATVs and dirt bikes 

shouldn’t be ―aggregated‖ with Jeeps and 4x4s; 

(3) Routes that provide technical challenge; and 

(4) Useable maps of the route inventory should 

be made publicly available.

Response (TM-33): 

The route evaluation and designation process 

will consider many factors, including the items 

you list.

Some inventory maps have been distributed to 

the public for several years. Other maps of the 

route inventory will be made available as soon 

as possible, though the cost of map production 

may require they be sold or may limit the 

numbers that can be produced.

Public Comments(TM-33): 

Comment: In the upcoming route designation 

process, it is important that the following items 

be recognized: a.) Some routes should be kept 

open for "permitted use" to organized clubs who 

have demonstrated their resource and OHV 

responsibility. b.) ATV's and dirt bikes should 

not be aggregated with Jeep and other 4X4 use 

as their use and impacts are different. c.) 4X4 

routes that provide technical challenges for 

skilled drivers with modified vehicles are 

important to maintain. d.) Useable maps of the 

route inventory should be made available as 

soon as possible for ongoing review by users so 

that when the designation process begins, all 

participants can be adequately prepared to have 

productive dialogue in the process (Individual, 

Cornville, AZ - Comment: #1085, letter #160)

Comment: In the upcoming route designation 

process, it is important that the following items 

be recognized: Useable maps of the route 

inventory should be made available as soon as 

possible for ongoing review by users so that 

when the designation process begins, all 

participants can be adequately prepared to have 

productive dialogue in the process. (Verde 

Valley 4 Wheelers, Cottonwood, AZ -

Comment: #1963, letter #400)

Public Concern (TM-34): 

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department believes it is inappropriate (predecisional) to make statements about route 

closures or analyze potential impacts from route 

closures since decisions will be made at a later 

date. They further believe these statements could 

result in routes being closed during the route 

evaluation/designation process in order to be 

consistent with these statements and 

requirements of the NEPA, rather than the result 

of a resource-based evaluation process.

Response (TM-34): 

Since the route designation process was not 

going to be completed in the RMP (except 

within the National Monument) it would be 

difficult to estimate impacts of plan decisions on 

transportation. To be able to compare 

transportation related decisions between 

Alternatives and provide some measure of 

quantitative analysis, we employed a commonly 

used ―model‖ concept. The model we used is 

described in Appendix N and points out that it 

―...is a tool for RMP level analysis and not an 

RMP decision.‖ The mileage figures used in the 
Chapter 5

839

impact analysis come from this model and are 

presented as a way to estimate impacts between 

Alternatives. As you point out, the route 

designation will be conducted at a later date and 

actual route mileage will be determined at that 

time. In the absence of hard numbers, models 

are commonly employed as a means to estimate 

impacts of actions. Since the route model is not 

a plan decision, it has no constraint or bearing 

on the eventual outcome of the route evaluation 

and designation process.

Public Comments (TM-34): 

Comment: Concerning Executive Summary 

Page s-xviii, ―Impacts on Travel Management,‖

commenter states ―...route modeling developed 

to simulate route decisions Comment We do not 

believe that it is appropriate to predict how 

many miles of routes may be closed under the 

various alternatives. This could be considered 

pre-decisional to the Transportation Plan.‖ (The 

State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1358, letter #401)

Comment: We (ADBSS) were completely 

overwhelmed trying to comprehend the context 

of roads and access. It did appear, however, that 

the impacts of various assumed road closures 

were analyzed but the extent and/or parameters 

of these road closures were not identified under 

the listed alternatives. This appears to be 

backwards and that the analyzed impacts are 

therefore invalid. (Arizona Desert Bighorn 

Sheep Society, Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2145, 

letter #342)

Public Concern (TM-35): 

Commenters feel route designation should be 

done as a part of this plan and encourage 

completion of a motorized route evaluation and 

designation using a process like the Route 

Evaluation Tree©, at an early date.

Response (TM-35): 

As much as the BLM agrees that the route 

designation should be conducted simultaneously 

with our land use planning effort, it is not 

practical to do so in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area for several reasons.

The route inventory was not completed at 

the time of the publication of the Draft 

RMPs/Draft EIS.

The 2000+ miles of route that was 

inventoried at the time of the DRMPs/DEIS 

publication could take several years to work 

through the route evaluation process and 

work with the public on the designation.

Route designation is an implementation 

action that is not required to be done at the 

time of the RMP.

It is BLM policy that the designation should 

be completed within 5 years of plan 

approval.

Because a portion of the route inventory within 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area was 

incomplete at the time we conducted impact 

analysis in the EIS, we attempted to ―model‖ 

how management decisions would affect route 

networks in each Alternative. The model 

described in Appendix N is not an RMP 

decision, but rather a way to characterize 

potential impacts of decisions in each 

Alternative. The model allows us to articulate a 

comparison of management approaches, but the 

actual route network designation will occur after 

approval of this plan by the Arizona State 

Director and will be conducted in accordance 

with the Route Evaluation and Designation 

Process described in Appendix D of the 

Proposed RMPs/Final EIS.

Developing a sustainable motorized route 

network, supplemented with a sustainable nonmotorized trail system, is key in long-term 

sustainability of natural resources and recreation 

opportunities. With that in mind, it will be a 

priority for BLM and the Phoenix District to 

complete the evaluation and designation as 

quickly as possible. Policy from the 

Washington Office is to complete that effort 

within five years of RMP completion.

Public Comments (TM-35): 

Comment: Motorized recreation use is arguably 

both the heaviest public use of these BLM lands

and the greatest potential hazard for the natural 

resources and landscapes of these lands, and it is 

one of the most controversial land management 

issues in the area. The Route Evaluation Tree 
Chapter 5

840

process which BLM has used in other Districts 

has proven to be a fair and systematic way of 

collecting and analyzing information about 

routes and their benefits and impacts on 

resources and other uses. We encourage BLM to 

complete, at an early date, the evaluation and 

designation of motorized routes in both the Agua 

Fria National Monument and the BradshawHarquahala areas using this type of process. 

(Individual, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #472, 

letter #204)

Comment: The route designation process 

should be done as part of the plan to avoid any 

potential for route predetermination. (Individual, 

Yuma, Arizona - Comment: #1145, letter #382)

Public Concern (TM-36): 

Commenters feel BLM should present the results 

of the Tree© analysis for each route in Agua 

Fria National Monument. Without this 

information, the analysis of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts associated with motorized 

travel is inadequate and incomplete.

Response (TM-36): 

The route evaluation data is in the public record 

and has been available upon request in the 

public room of the Phoenix District from 7:30 

am to 4:15 pm Monday through Friday (except 

for holidays) since January 6, 2006. It is also 

attached to this document on a CD.

Public Comments (TM-36): 

Comment: This section addresses several issues 

with the use of the "Route Evaluation Tree" (© 

ARS, Inc.). We support your concept to create a 

process to collect information on the impacts of 

various routes in order to generate alternatives in 

a uniform and documented process. However, 

very little information is presented regarding the 

route designation process itself, or the BLM's 

findings during the route designation process for 

the Monument. For example, while the Route 

Evaluation Tree © analyzes each route 

individually, no information on impacts is 

presented for any route. Without this 

information, it is impossible for the public to 

understand how the BLM made its decision, and 

assess the impacts to sensitive resources. 

Recommendation: BLM should present the 

results of the Tree © analysis for each route in 

Agua Fria National Monument. Without this 

information, the analysis of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts associated with motorized 

travel is inadequate and incomplete. (The 

Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2249, letter #343)

Comment: Finally, Alternative E, say that there 

are 12 miles worth of roads and trails ready to be 

closed. We were told form the very beginning of 

this process that no roads or trails would be 

closed until each road or trail went through an 

evolution process that included public input and 

that each road and trial would be put through an 

evaluation tree. Well this evaluation tree must 

have been taken out of the sight of the public, 

because we have no idea what roads are 

scheduled to be closed and what trails are 

scheduled to be closed and until we are able to 

go look at these roads and trails individually, 

and determine how the evaluation tree was 

applied to each one of these, no roads or trails 

should be closed, it should remain a separate 

process where we can have a separate meeting to 

evaluate each road and trail for its viability, it 

recreational value, and where it may end up 

being connected to other roads and trails that 

help make a better recreational opportunity for 

all. (Prescott Open Trails Association, Prescott, 

AZ - Comment: #1041, letter #104)

Public Concern (TM-37): 

Commenters recommend that BLM decline to 

use the Tree© for future route designation in the 

rest of the planning area. They also submit that 

the Tree is not an evaluation tool, but is instead 

merely a data-gathering device that collects 

information into a computer database. Others 

think that this process should be used on all 

route designations and has established policy. 

Response (TM-37): 

The methodology for evaluating routes has been 

standardized and policy has been issued from the 

Arizona State Office that we use the Tree© 

throughout Arizona BLM.
Chapter 5

841

Public Comments (TM-37): 

Comment: In addition, as previously 

communicated to the Arizona BLM on several 

previous occasions, we continue to hold that the 

Tree © in its most recent form is overly 

simplistic and fails to acknowledge several key 

issues that are critical for informed route 

designation decision-making. We recommend 

that the Bradshaw-Harquehala office decline to 

use the Tree© for future route designation in the 

rest of the planning area. We also submit that the 

"Tree" is not an evaluation tool, but is instead

merely a data-gathering device that collects 

information into a computer database. While we 

fully support collecting data into a reproducible 

and transparent form, such as a computer 

database, there are many simple and cost 

effective ways to do this with widely-available 

database and/or spreadsheet programs. Applying 

the Tree© software requires a significant 

investment of taxpayer dollars, which seems 

unwise in the face of declining federal budgets 

and when the agency could achieve similar 

electronic data collection through other common 

database and/or spreadsheet programs. (The 

Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2250, letter #343)

Comment: The other thing on route 

designations, is the decision tree going to be 

used‖ I think that is very important that is used. 

It's proved itself out it, it has established policy 

and pretty much at this point, and I think it ought 

to be used on all route designations. (Individual, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #67, letter #82)

Public Concern (TM-38): 

In order to comply with NEPA, respondents 

recommended the following modifications to the 

Route Evaluation Tree©:

Eliminate yes/no questions and remove 

branches that imply an order of issues to be 

raised.

Incorporate information on cumulative 

impacts, including how the severity of such 

impacts may be influenced by other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions.

Incorporate legal obligations under the 

Executive Orders, ORV regulations, NEPA, 

ESA, NHPA, Monument Proclamations, and 

National Conservation Area Legislation.

Include a description/evaluation of 

mitigation measures.

Include data sources, the identification of 

data gaps, and the need for additional data 

gathering:

Response (TM-38): 

The evaluation tree process is simply a planning 

and data management tool that helps the agency 

staff and public to see route and landscape 

issues, benefits, uses and concerns, while 

providing possible options for management 

decisions. It is not a substitute for NEPA. 

The use of a systematic process, such as, but not 

limited to the Route Evaluation Tree© is 

Arizona State BLM policy. We use the 

Evaluation Tree © knowing that BLM staff 

makes the route decisions, not the tree. Your 

recommendations are considerations we take 

into account, regardless of how generally the 

Tree© is worded. It is BLM‘s responsibility to 

define what regulations to apply. The purpose 

for the Tree© is to maintain a systematic method 

of gathering data and identifying key issues, 

being as specific and accurate as possible. As a 

result of meeting with your organization, we 

additionally applied Craters of the Moon 

National Monument questions you supplied to 

some of the key routes in AFNM. The outcomes 

of both processes were the similar. Based on 

this, we feel confident that we have used the 

Evaluation Tree© process to the best of our 

ability. 

Public Comments (TM-38): 

Comment: We recommend the following 

modifications to the Route Evaluation Tree ©. 1. 

Tree© should eliminate yes/no questions, and 

remove the Branches that imply an order of 

issues to be raised: By phrasing the datagathering inquiries as yes or no answers and by 

placing them in the order shown, the Tree© 

inevitably implies decision-making and sheds its 

promise as a data-gathering tool. The format of 

the Tree© implies that once a question is 

"answered" and the next "step" is taken, the 
Chapter 5

842

decision or evaluation of the route in question 

has concluded that it can remain open despite 

any potential impacts or damage. In order to 

remedy this problem, the inquiries should be 

phrased to report all information on a route, 

including impacts (i.e., sensitive resource 

affected and description of effects), valid rightsof-way or permitted uses, condition, 

maintenance records, and use levels, all of which 

can then be evaluated in the appropriate context. 

(The Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2252, letter #343)

Comment: However, if the BLM chooses to 

incorporate the Tree© into the future route 

designation process, we have several 

recommendations for how it should be modified. 

If possible, we would also like to see these 

recommendations implemented and re-applied to 

the Agua Fria route designation process. We 

realize that the Tree© is but one step in a 

multiple-step process, and that the agency 

intends to gather other information in earlier or 

later steps, such as in regards to legal obligations 

and cumulative impacts. However, the Tree© 

data-gathering process is quite extensive, and 

channels evaluators down a branch that 

generally leads to a range of alternatives for that 

route. Therefore, it seems common-sense that 

these other information needs be incorporated 

into the data summary that is the result of the 

Tree© process. Therefore, we recommend that 

other information needs be incorporated so as to 

simplify the agency's job by having all relevant 

information summarized in one 

database/spreadsheet. Currently, the Tree© does 

not incorporate BLM's obligations under the 

Executive Orders, ORV regulations, NEPA, 

ESA, NHPA, Monument Proclamations, and 

National Conservation Area Legislation. We 

understand that ARS can customize the Tree© 

by adding inquiries, and we recommend that the 

agency require this so as to ensure your legal 

responsibilities are met. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2251, letter #343)

Public Concern (TM-39): 

Respondents feel BLM should recognize that 

some users will break the rules and travel off 

designated routes. Therefore, the BLM should 

analyze impacts accordingly, as well as include 

specific management actions that will reduce 

travel off of designated routes. BLM should 

identify, quantify, and analyze these likely 

impacts in both the ―affected environment‖ and 

―environmental impact‖ sections of the EIS.

Response:

NEPA and CEQ regulations require we analyze 

the impacts of our actions. No action we are 

taking is designed to encourage illegal or 

improper use of motorized vehicles. So, it is not 

required that we attempt to identify, quantify, or 

analyze the affects of an unauthorized activity.

Management actions to reduce off road travel 

vary by site specific conditions. Management 

actions including (but not limited to) post-andcable barriers, rock barriers, and trenching, 

along with signing and increasing patrols are all 

possible depending on the needs of the site. A 

laundry list of possible actions is not necessary 

as many possibilities exist, and new methods 

may present themselves depending on specific 

site needs and development of innovative 

solutions.

Public Comments (TM-39):

Comment: If designated routes are not clearly 

indicated on a widely-accessible map and 

appropriately signed, then it is likely that users 

may travel onto administrative routes or closed 

routes that are visible. Even the BLM's own Oil 

and Gas Surface Operating Standards for Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development, also referred 

to as the "Gold Book," recognizes the associated 

impacts from roads and oil and gas 

development: Oil and gas roads that are not 

closed to public use (through the use of gates or 

other traffic control devices) have the potential 

to serve secondary uses such as providing access 

for hunters and other recreational users who are 

not familiar with the road and area& In addition, 

roads have the potential to cause environmental 

harm through erosion, air pollution, stream 

degradation, habitat alteration, and increased 

public use of an area. [4th Edition, 2005, p. 16] 

Although this quote refers to oil and gas roads, 

the same logic applies to all visible, ungated 

routes, which could include administrative and
Chapter 5

843

closed (but not yet restored or blocked) routes. If 

the route is visible but unblocked, motorized 

users could use it, even if it is against the rules. 

Agua Fria and the rest of the planning area have 

limited staff, and existing law enforcement 

rangers cannot be everywhere all the time. 

Recommendation: BLM should include specific 

management decisions that will make it easy for 

ORV users to stay on designated routes, such as: 

(1) by providing a detailed and widely available 

map of available open routes; (2) signing routes 

that are open; (3) gating administrative routes; 

and (4) obliterating the "entrance" to closed 

routes as soon as possible to reduce their 

visibility. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2246, letter #343)

Comment: The intent of a designated route 

network is to limited motorized use to specific 

routes, and restrict use on closed routes, 

administrative routes, or cross-country. 

However, the BLM should recognize that some 

users will break the rules and travel off 

designated routes. Therefore, the BLM should 

analyze impacts accordingly, as well as 

including specific management actions that will 

reduce travel off of designated routes. (The 

Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2245, letter #343)

Public Concern (TM-40): 

Respondents are worried that the route mapping 

and designation may result in unfair or unjust 

enforcement, especially before the designation 

and signing is complete and existing routes are 

inventoried. They suggest the following 

language be included under Administrative 

Actions: ―Citations will be issued only for 

vehicle travel on clearly pre-existing motorized 

routes when the routes are signed as closed to 

motorized travel.‖

Response (TM-40):

Most public lands in the Planning Area are 

inventoried as to route locations. The described 

circumstances of unjust or unfair enforcement 

prior to route evaluation and designation have 

not been a concern with BLM‘s law enforcement 

rangers, field staff, or our visitors. We have, 

however, added the following clarifying 

language in Section 2.7.3.8 Travel Management

section:

Prior to OHV route designations, citations may 

be issued and other enforcement actions taken 

for illegal or unauthorized vehicle travel 

documented by BLM and Law Enforcement 

personnel. 

BLM‘s OHV route inventory for any subject 

area will represent all existing routes open and 

available for vehicle travel. Vehicle use in areas 

or on ―routes‖ not included as part of the 

inventoried route network will be considered 

illegal and unauthorized, off-road or crosscountry travel. Signing may or may not be 

present based on the location. In this case, 

citations may be issued at the discretion of the 

law enforcement officer. Citations will be issued 

for vehicle travel on inventoried and pre-existing 

motorized routes when the routes are signed as 

closed to motorized travel.

Public Comments (TM-40):

Comment: Motorized Use of Roads and Trails. 

Apparently BLM is nationally committed to 

mapping all roads and trails and declaring all

others, not mapped, as illegal for motorized use. 

We understand the arguments for this. However, 

total accurate mapping is very, very difficult. 

There are bound to be accidental omissions, and 

surely there will be new roads and trails created 

by prospectors, by ranchers mending their fences 

or tending their livestock and unfortunately 

some by group or individual recreational users. 

We are concerned that the mapping requirement 

will result in unnecessarily restricted use if 

totally enforced or else sporadic and selective 

enforcement, which, of course, is intrinsically 

unfair and unjust. For example, the section on p. 

261 entitled "Management Actions" provides, 

"all motorized/mechanized vehicle travel and 

access would be limited to vehicle routes 

selected by BLM through inventory." How 

would an ordinary person driving out from 

Phoenix for the day know what was and wasn't 

in the BLM inventory‖― For that matter, would 

he be likely to have a map even after the roads 

are mapped‖ Nevertheless, we are apparently 

going to have to live with the mapping plan, so 
Chapter 5

844

we have one suggestion for minimizing the 

problems and the unfairness: Add a paragraph 

under the subsequnt section beginning on p. 262 

entitled "Administrative Actions", reading, 

"Citations will be issued only for vehicle travel 

on clearly pre-existing motorized routes when 

the routes are signed as closed to motorized 

travel." (Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: 

#1990, letter #270)

Public Concern (TM-41): 

Respondents feel that there will be unacceptable 

negative impacts on monument objects,

including cultural and natural resources, from 

the route network and that the impact analysis 

fails to examine the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts or justify how each route 

contributes to preserving monument objects.

Response (TM-41): 

We believe the route network in the Proposed 

Plan (Map 2-76) protects vulnerable cultural 

resources, as shown by the following analysis. 

The following table (5-7) describes the 

distances, at 1⁄4 mile intervals, between the 

nearest open routes and the 12 sites/site clusters, 

under existing baseline conditions and as 

designated in the Final RMPs. The specific 

names and locations of the sites are available for 

review by qualified researchers at the Phoenix 

District.

Increased distances between open routes and 

vulnerable sites, especially across rocky surfaces 

and rugged terrain, are expected to enhance site 

protection, by reducing access and visibility. 

In regard to the 12 most vulnerable site areas, 

the route designations would increase the 

accessible distances to 7 sites, by designating 

current routes as ―closed‖ or for ―administrative 

use only.‖ The proposed route system also 

would maintain the current closures of two 

routes that once led directly to sites, but now 

restrict vehicle traffic. Under the current 

transportation system, there are 7 vulnerable 

sites that are less than 1⁄2 mile, and 5 sites that 

are further than 1⁄2 mile, from an open route. 

Under the proposed transportation system, there 

are 3 sites that would be less than 1⁄2 mile, and 9 

sites that would be further than 1⁄2 mile, from an 

open route. 

Prior to the late 1990‘s, roads led directly to 7 of 

the 12 most vulnerable sites/site areas. Under 

the proposed transportation system, direct route 

access will be cut off to all but one of these sites. 

This particular site on Black Mesa, which has 

been identified for possible interpretive 

development, will be closely monitored to detect 

any vandalism; a nearby, redundant route to the 

site will be closed. 

For these 12 particularly vulnerable sites, 9 sites 

would maintaining existing closures or changing 

the closest, currently open routes to ―closed‖ or 

―administrative use only.‖ At the other 3 sites, 

proposed route closures would reduce the 

number and density of open roads in the 

surrounding areas. The elimination of redundant 

routes and overall route densities would reduce 

impacts to sites from vandalism and soil erosion.

In general, and in terms of cumulative impacts 

from vandalism and erosion, cultural and natural 

resources would be protected by the elimination 

of redundant routes and overall route densities; 

the closure of at least 9 routes leading to canyon 

rims; and the closure of several routes near the 

river and creeks. Mitigation measures, which 

could include additional route closures, would 

be implemented if new surveys or monitoring 

observations revealed cases of damage 

associated with open routes.

In addition, the Proposed Management Plan 

includes closures or solely administrative use for 

a number of existing routes within riparian 

areas, pronghorn movement corridors, and 

pronghorn fawning areas. These designations 

will help protect biological resources and reduce 

habitat fragmentation. 
Chapter 5

845

As a part of our document revision process in 

preparation of the Proposed Resource 

Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, we have reviewed the 

proposed route network. We have included our 

evaluation data in the public record that has been 

available in the Public Room of the Phoenix 

District for public review since January 6, 2006,

and it is attached to this document on a CD. We 

believe the proposed route network provides the 

protection required by the Proclamation while 

allowing motorized access to the monument.

Public Comments (TM-41): 

Comment: As stated earlier in these comments, 

given that the purpose of the Monument is

protection of "objects" and given that Monument 

roads were not built for the purpose of 

protecting Monument objects - and too often 

harm Monument objects - The question is no 

longer ―Why shouldn't this route be here?‖ The 

question regarding each BLM road in the 

Monument is now ―Why should it be here?‖ The 

Proclamation puts the burden of proof on each 

BLM route not encumbered by valid existing 

rights to demonstrate how it sufficiently 

contributes to preserving "Monument objects." 

Roads that fail the "protection" test should be 

closed, and those that cannot be closed due to 

valid rights of way, should be limited to that 

specific administrative access only. (The 

Wilderness Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., 

Denver, CO - Comment: #2217, letter #343)

Comment: The plan fails to adequately address 

the impacts of the road network nor does the 

preferred alternative adequately protect the 

cultural and biological resources of the 

monument. Many of these roads invite damage 

to sensitive cultural resources, fragment 

important pronghorn fawning habitat, and are 

expensive to maintain. (Individual, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #926, letter #298)

Public Concern (TM-42): 

Respondents believe the Draft RMPs/EIS lacks 

adequate impact analysis or rationale of routes 

to remain open or be closed to comply with 

NEPA, and maybe even to NHPA. All routes 

designated open must be evaluated (cleared) 

consistent with Section 106 of NHPA before they 

are opened.

Response (TM-42):

Available cultural resource information was 

used on the national monument, and will be used 

in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, to 

take into account potential adverse effects on 

cultural resources when making route 

Table 5-7. Route Distances Between Nearest Routes and Vulnerable Site Clusters

Site Type, General Area Distance to 

open route, 

current 

route system

Distance to 

open route, 

proposed 

route system

Comment

Pueblo, Perry Mesa 1⁄4 mile 1⁄4 mile Current closure

Pueblo, Perry Mesa 1⁄2 mile 3⁄4 mile Direct route no longer exists

Pueblo, Perry Mesa 1⁄2 mile 3⁄4 mile

Pueblo, Perry Mesa 0 miles 1⁄2 mile

Pueblo, Perry Mesa 0 miles 3⁄4 mile

Pueblo, Perry Mesa 0 miles 21⁄4 miles

Pueblo, Black Mesa 3⁄4 mile 3⁄4 mile

Pueblo, Black Mesa 1⁄4 mile 1⁄4 mile

Pueblo, Black Mesa 1⁄2 mile 3⁄4 mile

Rock Art, Black Mesa <1⁄4 mile <1⁄4 mile

Rock Art, Black Mesa 1⁄2 mile 1⁄2 mile Current closure

Rock Art, North zone 1⁄4 mile 3⁄4 mile
Chapter 5

846

designations. The route designations would not 

open new areas or new routes to OHV use, but 

would limit use to existing routes, reduce the 

proliferation of new routes and provide clearer 

enforcement authority to reduce direct and 

indirect impacts to cultural resources. Routes 

could be closed if their use poses a threat to 

cultural resources. Failure to designate routes in 

the RMP or in the short term after RMP 

completion would lead to greater impacts to 

cultural resources in the long term.

The BLM considers designations of travel areas, 

roads, and trails as undertakings for the purposes 

of complying with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. In developing a 

proposed transportation plan, we have carried 

out the steps of the Section 106 process, which 

included: (1) a reasonable and good faith effort 

to identify historic properties that may be 

adversely affected; (2) consideration of potential 

adverse effects on the integrity of properties 

within the Perry Mesa National Register District 

and other areas of the monument; (3) assessment 

of the effects of the proposed transportation plan 

(and alternative plans) on historic properties; 

and (4) consideration of measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects 

of the proposed transportation plan. From the 

beginning of the planning process, we have 

consulted with the public, Indian tribes, 

government agencies, and the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), through meetings 

at various stages of the process. These groups 

were also given the opportunity to review and 

comment on the draft alternatives in the plan, 

and their comments were taken into account as 

we prepared the Draft RMPs/EIS for public 

review. 

With respect to the routes proposed to remain 

open, our actions are consistent with BLM 

policy in Instruction Memorandum No. 2007-

030, ―Clarification of Cultural Resource 

Considerations for Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) 

Designation and Travel Management.‖ 

Consistent with this guidance, we have applied 

the appropriate effort for identification of 

historic properties, in order to comply with 

Section 106. In addition, we have addressed 

potential direct and indirect adverse impacts to 

cultural resources, by closing many routes or 

restricting them to administrative use; and by 

incorporating monitoring and mitigation into the 

transportation plan. The natural terrain restricts 

the potential for route proliferation in much of 

the monument, and rough road conditions will 

continue to discourage travel into remote areas. 

Proposed designations that will not change or 

will reduce OHV use are unlikely to adversely 

affect cultural resources. 

All OHV use is subject to prohibitions against 

operation of vehicles on public lands in a 

reckless, careless, or negligent manner. Where 

an authorized officer determines that OHV‘s are 

causing or likely to cause adverse effects to 

cultural resources, 43 CFR 8341.2 requires 

immediate closure to the type or types of 

vehicles causing the adverse effect, until the 

adverse effects are eliminated and measures 

implemented to prevent recurrence.

Public Comments (TM-42):

Comment: BLM Must Comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) prior to the designation of motorized 

travel routes. An RMP establishes a written 

document of land use limitations, resource 

condition goals and objectives, support actions, 

and a number of other items. See 43 C.F.R. 

1601.0-5(k). In general, it "is not a final 

implementation decision on actions which 

require further specific plans, process steps, or 

decisions under specific provisions of law and 

regulations." Id. However, when an RMP 

designates areas for transportation access and 

travel, as is the case here, that decision is an 

"undertaking" requiring compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f. Adoption of 

the RMP is the final agency action that 

authorizes the designation of roads and routes as 

"open" for travel and transportation and offhighway vehicle (OHV) use, which have the 

potential to adversely affect historic properties. 

Therefore, BLM must comply with Section 106 

prior to approving the road designation and 

OHV designation. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2219, letter #343)
Chapter 5

847

Comment: Application of Section 106 of the 

NHPA to the designation of roads or routes. An 

RMP establishes a written document of land use 

limitations, resource condition goals and 

objectives, support actions, and a number of 

other items. See 43 C.F.R. 1601.0-5(k). In 

general, it "is not a final implementation 

decision on actions which require further 

specific plans, process steps, or decisions under 

specific provisions of law and regulations." Id. 

However, when an RMP designates areas for 

transportation access and travel, as is the case 

here, that decision is an "undertaking" requiring 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, 16 

U.S.C. 470f. Adoption of the RMP is the final 

agency action that authorizes the designation of 

roads and routes as "open" for travel and 

transportation, which have the potential to 

adversely affect historic properties. Therefore, 

BLM must comply with Section 106 prior to 

approving the road designation. The Draft RMP 

does not demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of Section 106, nor is there any 

information that the "Route 

Evaluation/Designation Decision Tree Process" 

complies with the requirements of Section 106. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires that BLM 

take into account the effects of its actions on all 

affected historic resources and to provide the 

federal Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation ("Advisory Council") a reasonable 

opportunity to comment prior to making its 

decision. 16 U.S.C. 470f. The Advisory 

Council's Section 106 regulations require 

Federal agencies to: (1) "make a reasonable and 

good faith effort" to identify historic properties 

potentially adversely affected by an undertaking; 

36 C.F.R. 800.4(b)(1); (2) determine the 

eligibility of historic properties for the National 

Register, id. 800.4(c); (3) assess any effects the 

undertaking may have on historic properties, id. 

800.5; and (4) if the effects are adverse, develop 

and evaluate alternatives or modifications to the 

project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those 

effects based on consultation with the SHPO, 

Indian tribes, the Advisory Council, and other 

consulting parties, id. 800.6(a). Importantly, the 

Section 106 regulations establish a process that 

creates a dialogue between the Federal agency 

and other parties, including identified consulting 

parties. Through this dialogue, when adverse 

effects are determined to occur in connection to 

the proposed action, the federal agency will seek 

ways to "avoid, minimize, or mitigate" adverse 

effects to identified cultural resources with input 

from consulting parties. (Individual, National 

Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, 

D.C. - Comment: #1805, letter #402)

Public Concern (TM-43): 

Respondents are disappointed that the agencies 

did not consider the input of citizens for travel 

routes.

Response (TM-43):

The Phoenix District considered the citizens‘ 

proposal for travel routes submitted November 

25, 2003. The route network depicted in 

Alternative D was derived from a number of 

individuals and groups, including:

Julie Sherman

Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter

202 E. McDowell Rd., Suite 277

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Jenny Neeley

Southwest Associate

Defenders of Wildlife

302 S. Convent Ave.

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Jason Williams

Arizona Wilderness Coalition

P.O. Box 267

Prescott, Arizona 86302

David R. Parsons

Wildlife Biologist

PARSONS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

8613 Horacio Place NE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111

Michelle T. Harrington

Phoenix Area Coordinator

Center for Biological Diversity 

P.O. Box 39629 

Phoenix, Arizona 85069-9629

Bill Broyles

Friends of Cabeza Prieta
Chapter 5

848

P.O. Box 64940

Tucson, Arizona 85728

Kelly Burke

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

PO Box 1594

Flagstaff, Arizona 86002

Public Comments (TM-43):

Comment: We are disappointed that the 

agencies did not consider a citizens' proposal for 

travel routes submitted by a coalition of groups 

including the Sierra Club and the Center for 

Biological Diversity (comments incorporated by 

reference from November 25, 2003). This 

proposal was formally submitted as part of a 

public comment period on the "preliminary 

range of alternatives" in November 2003, and 

was the subject of several subsequent 

conversations with the agencies. At each of 

these times, we formally requested that this 

proposal be considered as part of the RMP/EIS 

process. While Alternatives C and D come 

closest to our proposal, it is still quite different 

and the agencies have neither presented a 

justification for failing to consider the Citizens' 

proposal nor identified the manner in which the 

Citizens' proposal was incorporated in other 

alternatives. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2242, letter #343)

Comment: In fact in 2003, we spent a good 

amount of time and effort to map for the BLM 

all of the rideable roads and trails and washes 

East of Vulture Mine Road and we pointed out 

the very few that were too dangerous to leave 

open and note several that need work due to 

natural erosion. We never got any comment or 

acknowledgement of our submission despite the 

work we had put into it. Although we didn't map 

it we know the Federal and State lands west of 

Vulture Mine Road as well. (Individual, 

Prescott, AZ - Comment: #1965, letter #57)

Public Concern (TM-44): 

Respondents feel that no new OHV trails should 

be built in the monument and that designating a 

limited road network is a good way to protect 

monument objects. They suggest that 

Alternative E provides unreasonable motorized 

access in some areas, which threatens resources 

such as water. Others believe that road closures 

in the monument should be minimized. 

Response (TM-44):

All alternatives and all decisions proposed for 

the monument are limited by protection of 

monument resources and the ―objects‖ described 

in the Proclamation. Protection of these 

resources and objects do not preclude a certain 

amount of public use and recreational 

enjoyment. Though the Proclamation 

emphasizes the protection of these resources and 

objects, the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act allows for multiple use as long 

as the protection of monument resources and 

objects is ensured first. It is the opinion of BLM 

that all alternatives achieve this balance, and 

through our analysis we find the Proposed 

Alternative provides the best balance between 

protection of monument resources and objects 

with use and enjoyment.

The route evaluation and designation process for 

the national monument took many factors into 

consideration in determining the route network. 

The data related to this effort can be found in the 

public record and can be viewed upon request at 

the Phoenix District.

Public Comments (TM-44):

Comment: We believe that designating a 

limited road network is one of the best ways to 

protect the objects listed in the monument

proclamation. An extensive road network can 

impact a variety of monument objects. For 

instance, roads can fragment habitat, disturb 

wildlife, spread invasive plants, and invite 

vandalism at archeological sites. In addition, 

roads can lead to significant impacts due to 

increased human activity. Please recall that the 

monument proclamation does not list motorized 

access as an object to protect or preserve. We 

applaud the BLM for closing many of the most 

inappropriate motorized routes in the monument 

and favor management decisions that prevent 

impacts to precious riparian areas such as 

Badger Springs Wash and the Agua Fria River. 

We are not seeking to limit all human access to 
Chapter 5

849

the monument; rather, we are concerned that 

Alternative E provides unreasonable motorized 

access in several areas which directly threatens 

the very resources the monument was expressly 

created to protect. While providing motorized 

access: particularly for administrative use for 

resource monitoring and scientific study: is 

important, it cannot be provided at the expense 

of the monument objects. Restrictions on a few 

routes shown on Map 2-76 are both wise and 

necessary. (Sierra Club Southwest Regional 

Office, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1866, letter 

#340)

Comment: Minimize road closures (in AFNM). 

(Individual, Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: 

#1940, letter #353)

Public Concern (TM-45): 

Respondents request that BLM not build a fourmile alternative OHV trail from Badger Springs 

Wash to Bloody Basin Road because it would 

violate the intent of the Monument Proclamation

and result in more unplanned motorized trails.

Response (TM-45):

The National Monument Proclamation says ―For 

the purpose of protecting the objects identified 

above, all motorized and mechanized vehicle use 

off-road will be prohibited, except for 

emergency or authorized administrative 

purposes.‖ This does not preclude construction 

of a new road segment if it is determined that 

monument resources can be better protected 

through its construction or if a new route 

segment would enhance some aspect of 

monument management and no monument 

resources would be adversely affected. No such 

alternative OHV route is planned in the 

Proposed Alternative.

Public Comments (TM-45):

Comment: The monument proclamation clearly 

prioritizes the protection of monument objects 

over OHV recreation, stating: "For the purpose 

of protecting the objects identified above, all 

motorized and mechanized vehicle use off road 

will be prohibited, except for emergency or 

authorized administrative purposes" (page 697). 

As has been argued by representatives of the 

OHV community itself, the construction of a one 

mile section for an OHV route is not consistent 

with the proclamation and will directly impact 

monument resources. This route is clearly 

inappropriate and should not be constructed. 

(Sierra Club Southwest Regional Office, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1865, letter #340)

Comment: DO NOT BUILD a 4-mile 

alternative OHV trail from Badger Springs wash 

to Bloody Basin Road which would violate the 

intent of the Agua Fria monument proclamation 

and result in more unplanned motorized trails. 

(Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: #319, 

letter #173)

Public Concern (TM-46): 

Respondents feel that having 25 miles of 

secondary road accessible in good weather by 

two-wheel-drive vehicles is too much and 

contrary to purposes of the Monument 

Proclamation. They suggest these roads be 

designated as tertiary instead.

Response (TM-46): 

The 25 miles of secondary road includes Bloody 

Basin Road, a county right-of-way, a secondary 

access road to Cordes Lakes, and access to some 

of the private inholdings in the north portion of 

the national monument. For reasons of public 

safety and health, these roads will continue to be 

maintained at their current level.

Public Comments (TM-46): 

Comment: 4.Alternative E - Page 166, 2.6.1.9 

Travel Management, Public Access: ―Having the 

25 miles of secondary roads, accessible in good 

weather by two-wheel-drive vehicles would be 

contrary to the purposes of the Monument as 

stated in the President Proclamation. Having 

fewer miles would in point of fact, help preserve 

it by keeping its wilderness ̈ feel. ―We 

recommend that these roads be designated as 

tertiary roads. (Black Canyon Trail Coalition, In, 

Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #1268, 

letter #280)

Public Concern (TM-47): 

Commenters would like to see roads ―kept as far 

from cultural sites as practical‖ and support 
Chapter 5

850

closure of roads or designation for 

administrative use only to protect cultural 

resources. 

Response (TM-47): 

It appears that some roads on Perry Mesa are 

associated with the history of vandalism at large 

sites and site clusters. According to Ahlstrom 

et. al. (1992:31), the largest sites on the mesa 

have been known to pothunters and exploited by 

them for years. Ease or difficulty of access has 

probably had little effect on the attractiveness of 

these sites to pothunters. Instead, their appeal 

determined the quality of access, in the sense 

that a number of the roads on Perry Mesa appear 

to have been directed to the major sites. 

This information indicates that roads to the 

major sites may facilitate vandalism, as well as 

easier access by visitors who might cause either 

intentional or unintentional damage. Excluding 

the data from the Tonto National Forest, we 

defined the 12 most vulnerable sites/site clusters 

on Perry Mesa, Black Mesa, and in other areas 

of the monument. Relevant considerations 

included site size, visibility, past vandalism, and 

public knowledge of site locations. These 

locations include all pueblo ―room blocks‖ that 

contain 40 or more rooms, as well as large areas 

of rock art and many of the sites that have more 

than 20 rooms.

Prior to 1995, open roads or jeep trails led 

directly to seven of these 12 sites. In the late 

1990‘s, the BLM closed one of these routes, to 

protect riparian habitats and cultural resources 

within the corridor recommended for Wild & 

Scenic River designation along the Agua Fria 

River. The closure has remained in effect since 

that time. Also in the late 1990‘s, a jeep trail 

that led directly to Pueblo Pato faded out of 

existence, due to natural reclamation and a lack 

of use. This change may reflect non-use by the 

BLM, as well as signing and more frequent 

monitoring of the site, after two vandals were 

observed there and were later arrested and 

successfully prosecuted under the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act. In a 

third case, as a protective measure, the BLM 

recently installed a locked gate that restricts 

direct access to Pueblo la Plata by vehicles. 

Therefore, under the current transportation 

system, open routes lead directly to 4 of the 12 

most vulnerable sites/site clusters. There are no 

known cases of serious damage from roads that 

have gone through sites. Many archaeological 

sites are unobtrusive, inaccessible, and far from 

roads. Rugged terrain, deep canyons, and rocky 

mesa surfaces constrain route proliferation and 

discourage cross-country travel by vehicle or 

foot. Field inventories are needed to further 

evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the 

existing route network on sites that have yet to 

be discovered. For that reason, Section 2.7.2.6 

defines Class III surveys of travel corridors as a 

major priority for inventory.

We recognize that ease of access to sites may 

increase their vulnerability to vandalism. 

Through the route evaluation process, we have 

identified routes that increase the vulnerability 

of known sites. In the Proposed Management 

Plan, we have generally closed those routes, 

converted them to administrative use, or closed 

them at a distance from the site that the 

vulnerability is negated. Through the route 

evaluation and designation process, we 

addressed access needs and protection of 

cultural resources. The proposed transportation 

network would provide enhanced protection for 

sites through restrictions on access, while 

maintaining access for monitoring and research. 

For a related analylis of impacts, please refer to 

Section 4.12.13. 

Public Comments (TM-47): 

Comment: We (Friends of the AFNM) support 

the closure of roads except for administrative 

use to perform site monitoring or research 

should vehicular access be necessary. We 

believe that posting the reason for the road 

closure (e.g., to protect cultural resources) will 

assuage most users. We recognize that 

designating routes as "for administrative use 

only" will not dissuade all drivers from illegally 

utilizing these routes and will require some basic 

level of maintenance and monitoring. However, 

we believe these costs to be significantly less 

than those required to monitor and prevent 

damage from an unrestricted roadway. Please 

remember that when these resources are 
Chapter 5

851

impaired, they will not regenerate: their value is 

lost forever. (Friends of the Agua Fria National 

Monument, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2072, 

letter #339)

Comment: All roads that access sensitive 

wildfire habitat and cultural sites should be 

eliminated and returned to original native cover. 

(Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1183, 

letter #357)

Public Concern (TM-48): 

To protect monument resources, respondents 

support closing or limiting use of the following 

roads to Administrative Use only: 

The dead-end route that crosses Black Mesa 

from the Sunset Point Rest Area exit.

The dead-end route that accesses Lousy 

Tank from FR14.

The dead-end route that travels west across 

Perry Mesa towards the southern edge of 

Perry Tank Canyon accessing Bob's Tank 

and the spur route that runs south to a stock 

tank.

All dead-end roads on Perry Mesa 

The long, dead-end route that travels west 

across Perry Mesa toward the northern edge 

of Perry Tank Canyon and north towards 

Baby Canyon.

The road originating in the extreme 

southern part of section 33 and leading to 

Pipe Tank.

The power line that runs down the middle of 

Perry Mesa.

Route crossing Silver Creek from Double 

Tank.

A jeep trail which goes through section 20 of 

the Squaw Creek Mesa quad in the extreme 

southern part of the Monument.

Response (TM-48): 

Route evaluation was conducted for each route 

for each alternative on the national monument. 

The data indicates uses being made of each route 

and conflicts related to designating them open. 

Two issues present themselves with limiting 

access of roads to ―Administrative Use Only.‖

First, by closing a road to the public, some uses 

will be denied. The roads you suggest closing 

are popular access for hunting, bird watching, 

visiting cultural sites, hiking, and scientific 

research access to Perry Mesa, the east side of 

Agua Fria Canyon, and tributaries of the Agua 

Fria River from the east.

Second, successful closure of a road is 

accomplished if it can be enforced. Complete 

closure is achieved best if barriers are 

constructed at the entrance of the closed road 

and the road is obliterated through reclamation. 

If the road is still open, even for administrative 

use, it is visible to passing motorists. Gates 

designed to deny access to the public while 

allowing access to authorized users often present 

little challenge to those who are motivated to 

circumvent them. Especially in places like Perry 

Mesa, there is little or no vegetation or terrain 

features to help reinforce such gates. In many 

cases, the gates become a source of increased 

impact rather than the protective barrier they 

were designed to be.

For these reasons, we have designated roads as 

―Limited to Administrative Use Only‖ in those 

areas where resource protection clearly requires 

it and it is enforceable.

We have conducted further review of the route 

network in the national monument for our 

Proposed Plan. The network portrayed in Map 

2-76) reflects this review. It is BLM‘s goal to 

protect the resources and objects of the 

monument while still allowing an appropriate 

level of public use and enjoyment. We believe 

the route network in the Proposed Plan achieves 

this. Route evaluation data and notes from our 

review are available from the Phoenix District

upon request.

Public Comments (TM-48): 

Comment: We (Friends of AFNM) believe the 

following routes should be closed to all 

motorized travel in the final resource 

management plan: -The short route just north of 

Squaw Creek that is accessed from FR14. This is 

a short, dead-end route that accesses several 

known cultural sites. Its distance from Bloody 

Basin Road will make it difficult for the BLM to 
Chapter 5

852

adequately patrol this area and maintain the 

roadway. This route should be closed at the 

monument boundary and the current roadway 

converted to a footpath. -The very short route on 

the south side of Larry Creek that is accessed 

from FR14. This is an incredibly short segment 

that dead-ends about a mile into the monument. 

This route will also be difficult to maintain, 

provides motorized access to cultural resources, 

and should be converted to a footpath at the 

monument boundary. -The route that travels 

north across Silver Creek from Double Tank. 

This long segment provides access to a single 

stock tank while crossing a riparian area and a 

tributary to the Agua Fria River that we would 

like to see studied for Wild and Scenic River 

designation. This area has not been adequately 

inventoried for cultural resources and should not 

remain open to motorized vehicles. Please close 

this route to motorized vehicles where it 

branches off of the road to Pueblo La Plata. 

(Friends of the Agua Fria National Monument, 

Glendale, AZ - Comment: #2109, letter #339)

Comment: At the threshold, while I don't object 

to providing road access to the monuments, you 

propose far too many roads. By now, we all 

know that roads and ORVs can cause a range of 

impacts, such as spreading noxious weeds, 

allowing vandals too-easy access to cultural sites 

and disrupting sensitive wildlife. Please consider

closing the additional 15 miles of routes 

recommended by the Arizona Wilderness 

Coalition. These routes are generally dead-end 

routes, and closure would preserve 

archaeological sites, pronghorn habitat, and 

streams. (Individual, Nathrop, CO - Comment: 

#408, letter #317)

Public Concern (TM-49): 

Respondents think that building a new OHV 

route near Badger Springs is prohibited by the 

Proclamation and should be removed from the 

final plan. They feel that Badger Springs Wash 

Trail should remain closed to help improve the 

riparian corridor, reduce garbage, and preserve 

the scenic qualities of this trail without the noise 

and disruption of the motor vehicles. 

Others would like to keep the Badger Springs 

Jeep trail open and request that the wash to 

remain open for OHV recreation use. This 

would minimize impacts caused by creating a 

parallel trail, limit soil disturbance, reduce the 

cost to the tax payers for digging a new trail, 

reduce dust and visual impacts from OHVs, and 

would be more consistent with practices in other 

places, such as the Grand Staircase Escalante 

National Monument. Impacts could be mitigated 

through seasonal closures, interruptive sites, 

interpretive maps, and educational materials.

Response (TM-49): 

We examined reopening Badger Springs Wash 

to the river and chose not to for the following 

reasons:

It is in conflict with our legal requirement to 

manage the suitable Wild segment of the 

Agua Fria River for non-impairment until 

Congress makes a determination of its 

designation.

The riparian character of the wash segment 

is recovering from degradation due to 

motorized use.

Riparian habitat is clearly an object of the 

monument the proclamation requires us to 

protect.

In addition, we reconsidered retaining the 

motorized access upstream from the parking 

area to Bloody Basin Road. After several field 

visits and upon coordination with concerned 

citizens, we have maintained the proposed 

closure as described in our original route 

network for the following reasons:

The access route up the wash bottom 

threatens long term recovery and 

sustainability of the riparian zone in the 

lower portion of the wash segment

In moist climatic cycles the lower portion of 

the wash segment runs water for as much as 

several months to year-round. Continued 

access along this portion when water is 

present could disturb riparian recovery and 

wildlife access to the water.

Alternative routes would require 

construction that could also threaten 

monument objects or resources of interest.
Chapter 5

853

We would like to remind the readers that the 

designated route network for the national 

monument is an implementation decision, 

which is not protestable. It is, however, 

appealable upon signature of the Record of 

Decision. Protest and appeal processes are 

described in the Dear Reader letter of this 

document.

Public Comments (TM-49):

Comment: Badger Springs Wash Trail should 

remain closed. I have personally witnessed the 

conditions of the wash before and after the 

closure of the wash to ORV use. The riparian 

corridor has improved remarkably. Willow, 

cottonwood, and grasses have returned in places 

that were erosional ruts. The amount of garbage 

and trash has also declined significantly. It is 

unfortunate that most garbage and trash that 

comes into an area is brought in by vehicle users 

(this could probably be proven by a scientifically 

designed study). The walk along Badger Creek 

Wash is very short, approximately 1/2 mile. This 

distance does not deny access to most people 

since there is very little vertical change and the 

trail is easily navigated by most people. Being 

able to enjoy the scenic qualities of this trail 

without the noise and disruption of the motor 

vehicles has made this location a favorite 

destination for my educational field trips in field 

ecology. During these field trips I have been 

able to teach about the values of riparian desert 

ecosystems and cultural resources that would be 

at greater risk to vandalism and destruction due 

to vehicular accessibility. (Individual, Prescott, 

AZ - Comment: #817, letter #157)

Comment: the sole remaining off highway 

vehicle access to the Agua Fria River is via the 

Badger Springs wash jeep trail. Alternative E 

has as a facet of it the rerouting of this trail out 

of the wash on to higher ground. That poses a 

number of significant issues as far as we are 

concerned but I will limit my comments to just 

four. By rerouting the Badger Springs wash jeep 

trail out of the wash you are doing a number of 

things that run counter to what would represent 

in our minds good management of a national 

monument. Number one, by creating a parallel 

trail on higher ground to the Badger Springs 

wash trail you are going against minimal ground 

disturbance which is one of things that is a facet 

of national monument management. Secondly, 

the Badger Springs wash has no riparian, 

archeological or soil-related issues so its 

continued use of an off highway vehicle trail 

does not pose any potential risk or harm or run 

counter to the protection characteristics that are 

part of the national monument. Thirdly, the cost 

that would be born by the taxpayers in having to 

dig a parallel trail to replace the Badger Springs 

wash jeep trail is unnecessary. And finally, the 

trail that would be substituted for Badger 

Springs wash would be made of soils. And use 

of those trails would create dust and that dust 

would be visible from I-17 which is the gateway 

to the Agua Fria National Monument. From a 

visual resources management standpoint it 

represents a bad idea. Leaving us in the wash 

where the sand particles are heavier, they don't 

rise as high, settle much quicker, it is a much 

better way to channel your off highway vehicle 

use with a minimal amount of environment 

impact. (Prescott Open Trails Association, 

Prescott, AZ - Comment: #1035, letter #232)

Public Concern (TM-50): 

Respondents want to know how the number of 

ATV and motorcycle routes in the monument 

was calculated, what the total number of 

inventoried trails in monument is, and the 

location of data which shows the evaluation that 

closes 70 miles of trail.

Response (TM-50): 

The miles of route in the Agua Fria National 

Monument were determined by trained, 

experienced personnel who conducted the onthe-ground inventory using state-of-the-art GPS 

units. 

The total route mileage in the AFNM is 171

miles. The section of the plan showing miles of 

routes open, closed or limited in each 

Alternative are 2.3.1.8(Alt B), 2.4.1.8(Alt C), 

2.5.1.8(Alt D), 2.6.1.9(Alt E).

The route evaluation and designation data for the 

Agua Fria National Monument has been 

available in the public room at the Phoenix 

District, 21605 N. 7th Ave., Phoenix, AZ, 85027 
Chapter 5

854

from 7:30 am to 4:15 pm Monday through 

Friday (except holidays) since January 6, 2006. 

The public is welcome to come and look it over 

anytime during the above hours.

Public Comments (TM-50): 

Comment: You show that in the AFNM, there 

are only 4 miles of ATV or Motorcycle trail, 

how was this number arrived at? What was the 

total number of inventoried trails in the AFNM? 

Where is the data from the Trails evaluation in 

the AFNM that designated the 70 miles of trail 

closure? (Comment: #199, form #2)

Comment: Why are trails being closed? 

(Individual - Comment: #254, letter #172)

Public Concern (TM-51): 

Respondents suggest that without inventory of 

non-motorized trails, any non-motorized trails 

are illegal because they have not been 

inventoried and analyzed through NEPA or 

cleared for cultural resources and that data is 

required to show no impacts exist from nonmotorized uses. Further, they request all users 

be restricted to existing designated trails and no 

cross country travel be allowed by any user 

group and that when competitive events are 

prohibited, that these events be prohibited for all 

user groups as well. Respondents want to know 

the location of data supporting the claims that

the building of new non-motorized trails and 

recreation facilities has a beneficial impact on 

the Desired Future Condition of an area.

Response (TM-51): 

All designated hiking and equestrian trails in the 

Planning Area have recreation project plans, 

cultural clearances, and NEPA-related 

environmental assessments. Designated nonmotorized routes include the Black Canyon 

Trail, the Harquahala Peak Pack Trail, the 

Vulture Peak Trail, and trails within Hell‘s 

Canyon and Hassayampa River Canyon 

wildernesses. 

The claim that without inventory of nonmotorized trails, any non-motorized trails are 

illegal also holds true for most primitive roads 

and single-track routes in the Planning Area. 

Though they have been inventoried, most of 

these motorized routes have never had any sitespecific NEPA analysis or been cleared for 

cultural or endangered species, and many were 

illegally created by users through cross-country 

travel along former cattle or wildlife paths –

these motorized routes would also be illegal. 

The vast majority of motorized routes in the 

planning area had no planning or design to 

minimize the impacts on other resources, or 

maximize the route‘s contribution to the overall 

travel and transportation network

It is true that there are non-motorized routes that 

have not been inventoried. Many such routes 

surround communities within the Planning Area. 

These trails are a result of those communities‘ 

long history of casual and commercial use of the 

public lands. The Wickenburg community is in 

the process of inventorying local horse and foot 

travel routes at this time. Other communities are 

also building citizen efforts to conduct similar 

inventory in their vicinities. These efforts will 

allow non-motorized routes to be addressed in 

travel management planning within those areas 

as the RMP is implemented over the next several 

years.

Public Comments (TM-51): 

Comment: Which brings us to the main issue, if 

you have no inventory of existing nonmotorized trails and you have no drawings or 

data in the plan as to the location of proposed 

non- motorized route and trails in the planning 

document, how do you justify, in data, that 

replacing the motorized use with non- motorized 

use is the mitigate of resource issues or will 

meet your DFC? If you have no inventory, you 

have no way to use the Evaluation criteria your 

Planning document says you will use. Without 

the evaluation the trails can not be included in 

the planning document. Without the inventory 

and evaluation, you have no NEPA or SHPO 

documentation and the trails are illegal. (Arizona 

Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1616, letter #261)

Comment: Non -Motorized Routes Inventory 

Throughout the Management Plan, new nonmotorized trails are being created. -Where are 

the inventory data and maps showing the 
Chapter 5

855

locations of existing non -motorized and these 

new trails? -Dates these existing non-motorized 

trails were inventoried? -If these trails were 

inventoried, who inventoried them and who paid 

for them to be inventoried? -If you do not have 

that data, how will you evaluate those trails and 

will you use the same evaluation process for 

non-motorized as for motorized evaluation?

(Whiplash Motorsports, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1764, letter #389)

Public Concern (TM-52): 

Numerous comments were received concerning 

whether or not Bloody Basin Road could be 

rerouted to reduce pronghorn impacts. If not, 

BLM should investigate ways to reduce 

pronghorn impacts of existing road.

Response (TM-52): 

Bloody Basin Road is a right-of-way to Yavapai 

County. Currently, there is no evidence it has 

any affect on pronghorn movement or habitat. 

The greatest risk to pronghorn in the future 

would be to fence the road. BLM and Arizona 

Game and Fish Department will continue to 

monitor the pronghorn herd in the national 

monument and if it is determined the Bloody 

Basin Road is affecting pronghorn, we will work 

with Yavapai County to develop mitigation.

Public Comments (TM-52): 

Comment: Alternative E - Page 159. 2.6.1.4 

Cultural Resource Management Actions 

Moderate Use SCRMA (8,750 acres) -

Determine if there is a way to reroute the Bloody 

Basin Road so that pronghorn migration areas 

are not crossed. -If rerouting is not possible, 

investigate ways to minimize the impacts. (New 

River/Desert Hills Community Association, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1523, letter #393)

Public Concern (TM-53): 

Respondents believe BLM should avoid 

upgrading roads that will result in impacts to 

pronghorn and limit roads that impact fawning 

habitat. For instance, the four dead-end routes 

that cross Perry Mesa and affect Pronghorn 

fawning habitat and provide too much access to 

the cultural resources should be closed to 

administrative use only. Seasonal restrictions on 

use should apply to all user groups.

Response (TM-53): 

The final AFNM route designation reflects your 

comments. Between the draft and final 

document, we have reanalyzed the route network 

to include more closures of routes to protect 

Pronghorn Antelope and known archeological 

sites. Changes were made to include the use of 

administrative use only routes for motor vehicles 

in areas with sensitive resources. Time was 

spent on the ground reviewing the possibility of 

making such designations. In an effort to further 

monitor all types of use that might affect 

monument resources, a backcountry camping 

free permit will be required. Motorized and 

mechanized vehicles will be restricted to 

designated routes and hiking trails may be 

developed in the future to contain human use to 

designated trail corridors. 

Public Comments (TM-53): 

Comment: The preferred transportations plan 

allows unnecessary roads in areas critical to 

pronghorn for fawning. Please close the four 

dead-end routes across Perry Mesa and the deadend route to the windmill north of Silver Creek.

(Individual, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #328, 

letter #274)

Comment: 2.6.1.3 Biological Resources page 

158 Management Actions You are limiting or 

Mitigating Vehicle Routes (OHV) because of 

Prong Horn Sheep and other animal corridors 

and areas of concern. ALL use will have a 

similar affect on animals and their surroundings. 

Please apply the same rules and restrictions 

(seasonal, closures) To all users (Whiplash 

Motorsports, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1713, 

letter #389)\

Public Concern (TM-54): 

Respondents believe the concerns related to 

cultural resources and wildlife outlined should 

be assessed in the future route designation 

process.
Chapter 5

856

Response (TM-54): 

The route evaluation and designation process for 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area will 

include an appropriate level of environmental 

analysis.

Public Comments (TM-54): 

Comment: In regards to the BradshawHarquahala planning area, we are aware that IM 

No. 2004-005 allows BLM to delay route 

designation for five years in this planning area, 

but it does instruct BLM to use the open, closed, 

and limited designations. The concerns related to 

cultural resources and wildlife outlined here 

should also be assessed in the BradshawHarquahala planning area in alternatives and the 

affected environment sections of the RMP in 

regards to travel management. Furthermore 

these issues should be addressed in the future 

route designation process. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2238, letter #343)

Public Concern (TM-55): 

Respondent is concerned about vehicle 

collisions with wildlife, cows, and wild burros 

and suggests limiting and reducing the amount 

of roads to minimize collisions.

Response (TM-55): 

Vehicle collisions with wildlife or livestock are 

possible and occasionally do occur. Laws for 

unsafe use of vehicles are in effect today and can 

be invoked at the discretion of law enforcement 

officers. Furthermore, routes will be designated 

in accordance with CFR8342.1 and other 

applicable laws and regulations.

Public Comments (TM-55): 

Comment: I am also concerned about vehicle 

collisions with native wildlife. I am also 

concerned about vehicle collisions with cows 

and wild burros. I suggest that limiting and 

reducing the amount of roads to minimize 

collisions. (Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: 

#700, letter #227)

Public Concern (TM-56): 

Respondent does not want to see mechanized 

travel being used in the areas of ecological 

concern.

Response (TM-56): 

Areas of ecological concern such as Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern and riparian 

areas will be protected through the route 

evaluation /designation process. Mechanized 

travel and non-mechanized travel modes will be 

considered for their effect on sensitive resources. 

Appendix D describes the designation process. 

Public Comments (TM-56): 

Comment: I do not want to see mechanized 

travel being used in the areas of the ecological 

concern. (Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: 

#715, letter #229)

Public Concern (TM-57): 

Respondents feel to experience a fuller 

experience of the monument, a decent road to La 

Plata Pueblo is necessary. There is a nice 

circuit from the pueblo to the fort, looping back 

past the agave fields and the terraces which 

would be an ideal interpretive trail.

Response (TM-57): 

Pueblo la Plata is proposed as the primary area 

for interpretive development within the 

monument. Associated sites within the High 

Use SCRMA, such as Fort Silver and prehistoric 

fields, may be incorporated into the interpretive 

plan that will be developed in the future. We 

will keep your suggestion in mind when we 

begin preparing an interpretive plan. It is 

consistent with the cultural landscape approach 

that we are encouraging in scientific research 

and public education.

Bloody Basin Road is maintained by Yavapai 

County, and the BLM also conducts annual 

maintenance on segments of this key 

transportation route. Since Bloody Basin Road 

crosses the pronghorn movement corridor and 

increased traffic and speeds could affect 

pronghorn movement to the Perry Mesa fawning 

area, it is unlikely to be improved much beyond 

current conditions. The primitive route to 

Pueblo la Plata currently requires the use of a 
Chapter 5

857

high-clearance vehicle. In developing an 

interpretive plan for the site, the BLM will 

consider the feasibility and impacts of 

improving this route to enhance public access. 

However, it would not be paved and would 

likely remain accessible primarily by highclearance vehicles. The BLM will also consider 

the development of parking areas and hiking 

trails to the site from Bloody Basin Road or the 

Double Tanks area, within the High Use 

SCRMA.

Public Comments (TM-57): 

Comment: Second, for those who wish a fuller 

experience of the monument, a decent road to La 

Plata Pueblo is necessary. Having given a 

number of tours out there to students, reporters, 

and interested laypeople there is a nice circuit 

from the pueblo to the fort, looping back past the 

agave fields and the terraces. This would be an 

ideal interpretive trail. Those less adventurous 

could simply tour around the pueblo. The La 

Plata location provides a wonderful sense of 

relative isolation (not possible in the Richinbar 

exit location) that visitors from Phoenix have 

enjoyed immensely. (ASU School of Human 

Evolution and Social Change, Tempe, AZ -

Comment: #1975, letter #325)

5.4.14 WILD HORSES AND 

BURROS

Public Concern (WB-1): 

Respondents feel burros should be removed due 

to impacts to wildlife waters in Browns Canyon 

and Hummingbird Springs. BLM should 

aggressively seek removal of all burros in the 

Harquahala Herd Area.

Response (WB-1):

We believe the RMP addresses the management 

of wild horse and burros for both of the areas in 

question. The Harquahala Herd Area is targeted 

for total burro removal as described in Section 

2.7.3.11.

Public Comments (WB-1):

Comment: *Burros *should be removed 

wherever they occur. The fact that they were 

turned loose as unwanted animals and have 

become feral no more makes them "native" than 

it would to consider unwanted dogs dumped in 

the area to be "native." Both should be removed, 

as one would get rid of unwanted weeds.

(Individual, Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: 

#1934, letter #353)

Comment: Burro Removal. Due to burro 

impacts to wildlife waters in Browns Canyon 

and Hummingbird Springs, I believe BLM 

should aggressively seek removal of all burros in 

the Harquahala Herd Area. (Individual, Sierra 

Vista, AZ - Comment: #1135, letter #286)

5.4.15 DOCUMENT 

COMPLEXITY AND REVIEW 

Public Concern (DR-1):

Respondent believes the presentation of 

alternatives would have benefited from an 

expanded use of tables to present the differences 

between the alternatives more clearly, such as 

was presented in Table E-1.

Response (DR-1):

The document format was limited by technical 

requirements of our ePlanning pilot effort.

Public Comments (DR-1):

Comment: BLM is to be commended for the 

extensive scoping that occurred for this project, 

including the innovative community visioning 

exercises. The DEIS was well written and 

impacts were well documented. However, the 

presentation of alternatives would have 

benefited from an expanded use of tables to 

present the differences between the alternatives 

more clearly, such as was presented in Table E-1 

but with more detail. The comparison of 

alternatives was facilitated, however, by the 

excellent collection of maps that were included. 

(U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA - Comment: #2168, letter #396)
Chapter 5

858

Public Concern (DR-2): 

Respondents feel that it is inappropriate to have 

the companies that profit from Federal realty 

actions participate in the planning effort and 

that businesses that have taken part in the 

planning effort should be excluded from future 

contracts.

Response (DR-2): 

These comments are beyond the scope and intent 

of this RMP.

Public Comments (DR-2): 

Comment: Finally, in reviewing the list of 

preparers at the end of the EIS, I noted that 

Western Land Group worked on land and realty 

issues for this document. We are familiar with 

that company because they act as consultants 

and facilitators on federal land exchanges. 

Western Land Group has facilitated several land 

trades in Arizona, including the Yavapai Ranch 

Land Exchange that was recently approved by 

the U.S. Congress and signed into law. It is not 

appropriate for a company that promotes and 

profits by federal realty actions to participate in 

land and realty analysis for a decision-making 

document such as this. It is possible that the 

BLM was not aware of Western Land Group's 

other work, but we hope your agency will more 

carefully vet subcontractors for this kind of work 

and not use WLG's services again on this type of 

project. (Western Lands Project, Seattle, WA -

Comment: #1058, letter #14)

Comment: I would also like to see any busness 

that have taken part in the planning tfot this 

excluded from any contracts that result in this 

venture. (Individual, Chandler, AZ - Comment: 

#37, letter #50)

Public Concern (DR-3): 

Respondents would like to request a six-month 

extension for public review of DRMPs/DEIS 

because the 90-day review period does not allow 

enough time to review the lengthy, complex 

document. Commenters feel that BLM must 

remember that at any given time there may be 

several planning areas out for review 

simultaneously and that this places a burden on 

the public and organizations. 

Response (DR-3):

The 90-day public comment period that was 

provided is twice as long as required by Council 

on Environmental Quality regulations for 

Environmental Impact Statements. We regret 

you feel it was insufficient for your review, but 

it is as long as we can practically allow. 

Public Comments (DR-3):

Comment: would like to request a 6-month 

extension for detailed public response due to the 

complexity of this 800 plus page document. I 

find it had to believe that BLM actually expects 

a layman such as myself to understand, digest, 

and react intelligently in such a short period of 

time. (Individual - Comment: #248, letter #290)

Comment: We (ADBSS) feel compelled to also 

comment on the burden this and other 

concurrent BLM planning process have placed 

on the public and our organization in particular. 

Thoroughly reviewing a document the size and 

complexity of this RMP/EIS is a daunting task 

for most professional planners but it is nearly an 

impossible undertaking for your average public 

layperson or organization volunteer. Coupled 

with other concurrent planning processes the 

required effort and attention becomes 

overwhelming. We can only hope that future 

planning processes are more user friendly and 

not so intimidating to the general "nonprofessional" public. We are sure you would get 

more involvement and input. We would also 

hope that more emphasis would be placed on 

interpreting layperson input and not rely so 

heavily on a page-by-page substantive review 

from the public. We are not fluent in the 

language of federal land planning and need for 

our thoughts and concerns to be interpreted by 

those that understand our language and our set 

of values. To this end we have entrusted the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department with 

providing you the necessary inter-agency 

guidance that is responsive to the concerns of 

sportsmen and wildlife conservation 

organizations throughout the state. We trust that 

you will continue to view their input as if it were 

coming from a significant segment of the public.
Chapter 5

859

(Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Mesa, 

AZ - Comment: #2150, letter #342)

Public Concern (DR-4): 

Respondents recommend that careful 

consideration be taken when applying 

allocations where no overarching direction is 

available and that specific language is included 

within the plan to clarify how the associated 

decisions should be implemented and how they 

may affect other resources or uses. The impact 

analysis should consider the full range of 

implementation decisions possible, especially 

when there is an excessive use of the many types 

of designations throughout the document. It is 

suggested that these various designations or 

management type areas be reduced to avoid 

complexity and because excessive designations 

are a subtle way to impose further restrictions 

on the multiple-use concepts of resource 

management. Other commenters commend the 

BLM and believe that the use of management 

areas is a good way to present information and 

that the BLM avoided overly technical language 

in the document.

Response (DR-4):

Managing multiple uses is complex. Allocations 

and designations allow BLM to put some focus 

on management while recognizing other uses 

being made of the land. We recognize it is 

complex and often confusing. However, we 

have simplified as much as we feel it is possible 

while still being able to put focus on resources 

and areas that need it. BLM feels the allocations 

and designations presented in our Proposed 

RMPs/Final EIS allow the management attention 

needed to meet our legal requirements. 

Managers must have the flexibility to interpret 

their plans and modify such plans to meet 

changing conditions. Recreation settings are 

designed to maintain or enhance the experiences 

of recreation users, and those settings are 

applied in a site-specific manner. The multiple 

designations were driven by the complexities of 

land management in our Planning Area. The 

Planning Area is now an urban and urban 

interface landscape. BLM must propose and 

implement resource-specific management 

prescriptions to maintain, protect or conserve the 

broad range of public land resources from the 

increasing demands of resource use and public 

recreation.

Public Comments (DR-4):

Comment: There is an excessive use of the 

many types of designations throughout this 

document. If a special category has not been 

established by an interest group, it leaves the 

other "multiple uses" out and lacking in 

emphasis. It is suggested that these various 

designations or management type areas be 

reduced and only utilized for the very special 

areas. Over use of them dilutes the importance 

of all of them. Additionally, due to the 

complexities or some of these designations, it is 

a subtle way to impose further restrictions on the 

multiple use concepts of resource management.

(Individual, Cornville, AZ - Comment: #1076, 

letter #160)

Comment: The BLM has done a good job on 

this document and has managed not to use the 

overly technical or obfuscatory language so 

often found in EISs. Except as noted below, the 

document explains quite well the potential 

impacts of the lands and realty component of 

each of the alternatives, which is the area of 

greatest interest to us. (Western Lands Project, 

Seattle, WA - Comment: #1054, letter #14)

Public Concern (DR-5): 

Respondents believe that the DEIS report should 

be broken into at least two or more documents 

and that the AFNM should be considered 

separately from the Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Area. This would cut down on the 

length of the document, reduce public confusion, 

and allow the public time to comment on all 

plans published simultaneously throughout 

BLM.

Response (DR-5):

The RMP/EIS includes separate and distinct 

resource management plans for the Agua Fria 

National Monument and the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. However, the 

organization of the document is based on the 

definition and analysis of a similar range of 
Chapter 5

860

management alternatives for each area, which 

requires the reader to search for the sections 

relating to the monument, as opposed to the rest 

of the Planning Area. Section 1.5.1 defines the 

purpose, significance, mission, and goals for the 

national monument, which emphasize the 

protection and preservation of monument values. 

Section 1.5.2 defines the management goals for 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, which 

support resource protection within a multipleuse framework that allows for a wider range of 

recreational activities and land uses.

Public Comments (DR-5):

Comment: Furthermore, we believe combining 

a National Monument with a Bureau of Land 

Management planning area in this draft 

Resource Management Plans and Environmental 

Impact Statement diminishes the preservation 

values of the National Monument and its 

purpose to those of a multi-use Bureau of Land 

Management planning area. (Hopi Cultural 

Preservation Office, Kykotsmovi, AZ -

Comment: #1152, letter #384)

Comment: Timing of the release The 

overlapping public comment periods for the 

Arizona Strip Draft RMP/EIS and the Agua Fria 

National Monument/Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Draft RMP/EIS made it very difficult for 

members of the public to read, digest, and 

formulate substantive and helpful comments on 

these complex and important plans. These lands 

are important to citizens throughout Arizona.

(Sierra Club Southwest Regional Office, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1879, letter #340)

5.4.16 EDITORIAL ERRORS 

& CLARIFICATION

Public Concern (EI-1): 

Several comments were received suggesting 

necessary editorial corrections to maps and text 

or errors in linking to the web site. 

Response (EI-1): 

These errors/changes have been corrected in the 

Proposed Resource Management Plan/ Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Public Comments (EI-1): 

Comment: The NPRA-NW EIS link is 

connected to the Agua-Fria National Monument 

/ Bradshaw-Harquahala DRMP/DEIS.

(Individual - Comment: #33, letter #55)

Comment: Index errors: The plan contained an 

inordinate number of indexing errors. These 

errors made it significantly more difficult for the 

public to review the plan. (Sierra Club 

Southwest Regional Office, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1880, letter #340)

Public Concern (EI-2): 

Commenters believe transportation corridors 

are distinct from utility corridors and should be 

managed by different entities; therefore they 

should be labeled as such. They believe this 

approach will be less confusing to the reader. 

Response (EI-2):

Utility and transportation corridors are different 

than right-of-way corridors. Both utility and 

transportation corridors on BLM-managed land

are managed by BLM as allocations for future 

utility or transportation development. They 

constrain where future development will be 

entertained when proposals are brought to BLM 

for consideration. They do not in any way limit 

how right-of-way holders conduct business 

within their right-of-way, whether it is within an 

allocated corridor or not.

Public Comments (EI-2):

Comment: Section Affected Environment, Lands 

and Realty, Page s-xii, 1st paragraph: There is 

mention of utility corridors in this section, but 

none of existing transportation corridors in the 

study area. Later in the document (page 392) an 

explanation is provided stating "transportation 

corridors are included as a part of the utility 

corridors in both planning areas", The document 

is unclear in its use of the terms "Utility 

Corridor", and "Transportation Corridor", The 

text sometimes includes transportation corridors 

within utility corridors and sometimes not. The 

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 

believes transportation corridors are distinct 

from utility corridors, are managed by different 
Chapter 5

861

entities, and therefore should be labeled as such. 

We believe this approach will be less confusing 

to the reader. (Arizona Department of 

Transportation, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1430, 

letter #397)

Comment: On p. 212 there is confusing 

verbiage in the land use allocation that initiates 

discussion of "regional transportation" demand 

and corridors, then proceeds to discuss routing 

major utility systems and corridors. 

(Wickenburg Outdoor Recreation Committee 

(WORC, Wickenburg, AZ - Comment: #1906, 

letter #398)

Public Concern (EI-3): 

ADOT would like changes made to Section 

3.3.5, adding a reference to Map 2-79 and 

defining the CanaMex corridor more 

specifically.

Response (EI-3): 

Section 3.3.5 is in the Affected Environment 

section of our document. In this section we 

describe the current social, environmental, and 

in some cases the managerial situation that 

would be affected by our actions. The map you 

ask us to refer to is the corridors we are 

suggesting in our Proposed Alternative. Since 

they represent a proposed decision for this plan 

rather than an existing condition or situation, 

reference to it is inappropriate in the Affected 

Environment chapter.

BLM can only make decisions for BLMmanaged land. For this reason our planning 

document can only consider the portion of the 

CanaMex that crosses BLM within this Planning 

Area. Most of the rights-of-way you list do not 

cross BLM or are outside the Agua Fria National 

Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Areas.

Public Comments (EI-3): 

Comment: Section 3.3.5, lot paragraph, Page 

392: Add a reference to Map 2-79, which depicts 

the ―Utility & Transportation Corridors and 

Communication Sites for Alternative E.‖

(Arizona Department of Transportation, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1444, letter #397)

Comment: Section 1.8, Page 31: Please include 

a reference to the following ADOT planning 

documents for incorporation into your planning 

process: US 93 Wickenburg Ultimate Bypass -

Feasibility Report, July 2004. Corridor 

Evaluation for CANAMEX Designation 

Between 1-10 and US 93 -Final Report, October 

2004 (Arizona Department of Transportation, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1433, letter #397)

Public Concern (EI-4): 

Respondent could not locate Table 2-7.

Response (EI-4): 

Due to the length of the table, Table 2-7 is 

located at the end of Chapter 4, in the 

―Additional Tables‖ section.

Public Comments (EI-4): 

Comment: Concerning Table 2-7, commenter 

states, ―Not found between 2-6 and 2-8‖ (The 

State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1411, letter #401)

Public Concern (EI-5): 

Respondents believe there are ―inconsistencies‖ 

between the impact analysis summary table in 

Chapter 2 and the analysis in Chapter 4 and 

that the impact table was imprecise. 

Response (EI-5): 

The impact analysis summary table in Chapter 2 

has been updated to more accurately reflect the 

more thorough discussion of impacts found in 

Chapter 4.

Public Comments (EI-5): 

Comment: The Department [AGFD] believes if 

inconsistencies between the preferred alternative 

and the impacts analysis, as well as the issues 

identified in the attachment are not clarified, this 

document will not be in compliance with the 

requirements and spirit of NEP A for impact 

analysis and full disclosure in a manner 

understandable by the public. The future 

management of public lands is of significant 

interest to the public and the State of Arizona. 

Therefore, the Department believes it would best 
Chapter 5

862

serve the public interest to clarify the 

inconsistencies and clearly disclose which 

management actions are truly being proposed, 

along with an appropriate analysis of impacts, in 

a new draft document for public review. (The 

State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1352, letter #401)

Comment: Section Table -8 & Chapter 4 Page 

Statement Impacts will be similar to impacts in 

Alt X Comment Statement is frequently made in 

both Table 2-8 and Chapter 4. This too 

imprecise for reviewing impact analysis (The 

State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1397, letter #401)

Public Concern (EI-6): 

Respondent feels BLM needs to clarify that 

Maricopa County operates Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park under a land use agreement with 

the Bureau of Reclamation.

Response (EI-6): 

The land status portrayed in the document 

reflects the agency with surface management 

responsibility that most affects the public land 

user. We have noted in Section 2.13,

Interrelationships, that the Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park, though managed by the Maricopa 

County Parks and Recreation Department is 

withdrawn or owned by the Bureau of 

Reclamation for the water storage facility.

Public Comments (EI-6): 

Comment: The maps identify Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park as a "State, County, and City 

Parks." The park lands are Reclamation 

withdrawn lands for the Central Arizona Project. 

Maricopa County operates Lake Pleasant 

Regional Park under a land use agreement with 

Reclamation. This should be clarified 

somewhere in the document. (Bureau of 

Reclamation, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1512, 

letter #399)

Public Concern (EI-7): 

Respondent believes that the black-and-white 

planning area figure located in the Executive 

Summary is not user friendly and that a color 

figure would have been helpful.

Response (EI-7): 

The map referenced is a part of the Executive 

Summary and was intended to provide a 

summary overview of the plan location. The 

document contains at least 120 color maps of 

which Map 1-1 is a color, and more ―user 

friendly‖ equivalent to the map on page s-ii.

Public Comments (EI-7): 

Comment: 1. Summary, Page s-ii: The blackand-white planning area figure is not user 

friendly because a reader cannot adequately 

distinguish land ownership within the AFNM 

and BLM planning areas. A color figure would 

have been helpful. (Federal Highway 

Administration, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1416, letter #162)

Public Concern (EI-8): 

Respondent believes that Map 2-13 appears to 

be inconsistent with the text in Section 2.3.1.2 

regarding the Black Canyon Utility Corridor 

boundary.

Response (EI-8):

The map shows the eastern boundary of the 

Utility Corridor corresponding to the easternmost boundary of existing rights-of-way 

currently within the corridor as defined in the 

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (BLM 

1988a). Utilities now within the corridor 

include a power line and the El Paso natural gas 

line. The map and text appear to be consistent.

Public Comments (EI-8):

Comment: 7. Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.2-Lands 

and Realty (AFNM), Page 52: The text indicates 

the Black Canyon utility corridor would be 

narrowed so its eastern boundary would coincide 

with existing rights-of-way. However, Map 2-13 

shows this eastern boundary as extending 1 mile 

into the AFNM, thus creating an inconsistency 

with the text. (Federal Highway Administration, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1422, letter #162)
Chapter 5

863

Public Concern (EI-9):

Respondent suggests adding a bullet for 

conserving wildlife to Section 2.6.2.2.3.5.

Response (EI-9):

The bullet list referenced is for a Special 

Recreation Management Area. Wildlife related 

land acquisition criteria are presented in 

Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives, Section 2.7.1.4, Threatened or 

Endangered Species.

Public Comments (EI-9):

Comment: Concerning Section 2.6.2.2.3.5 

Page 192, column 1, bulleted list, commenter 

states, ―Could Suggest adding a bullet for 

conserving wildlife.‖ (The State of Az Game 

and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1368, letter #401)

Public Concern (EI-10):

Respondent recommends changing the word 

―protect‖ to ―manage‖ in Section 2.7.1.6.

Response (EI-10):

We believe the word protect is the intent of the 

discussion and so it will not be changed.

Public Comments (EI-10):

Comment: Concerning Section 2.7.1.6 Page 

224, column 1, 2nd paragraph, ―except the 

minimum needed to protect resources,‖ 

commenter states, ―Change protect to manage.‖

(The State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1386, letter #401)

Public Concern (EI-11):

Respondent believes that Map 2-78 fails to show 

scattered parcels for sale in the planning area.

Response (EI-11):

We believe the maps do identify the parcels of 

land that are available for land tenure adjustment 

are clearly identified on Map 2-78, outlying 

parcels are not are the same and represent small 

public lands outside of the major public land 

mass that are administered by the Hassayampa 

Field Office and are identified on Map 1-2. 

Public Comments (EI-11):

Comment: At 2.6.2.1.1 (p.168) scattered parcels 

for sale are supposed to be @ map 2-78. While I 

did not find that map, outlying parcels are shown 

on map 1-2. I presume they are the same but 

note that it is most difficult to ascertain their 

exact location in the Arizona Atlas. (Individual, 

Mesa, AZ - Comment: #1158, letter #376)

Public Concern (EI-12):

Respondent thinks that maps should be clearly 

marked as also describing the Grazing 

Resources for Alternative E, or that an 

additional map should be added that addresses 

the actions of Alternative E.

Response (EI-12):

We believe Maps 2-5 and 2-21 identify the 

public lands within the planning area that have 

livestock grazing authorized as well as other 

resource management designations. These 

maps, in conjunction with the text for the 

alternatives, explain rangeland management for 

the public lands within the Planning Area.

Public Comments (EI-12):

Comment: Preferred Alternative map difficult 

to retrieve. The collection of Maps describing 

the actions of Alternative E (Maps 2-72 through 

2-91) does not include a map of Grazing 

Resources; readers are instead referred in the 

text to Maps 2-5 and 2-21, which are titled as 

describing Grazing Resources for Alternatives A 

and B, respectively. These maps should be 

clearly marked as also describing the Grazing 

Resources for Alternative E, or an additional 

map could be added to the collection that 

addresses the actions of Alternative E.

(Individual, Champaign, IL - Comment: #1899, 

letter #201)

Public Concern (EI-13):

Respondent feels that all alternatives should 

include this statement from Alternative A: 

―Small utility distribution systems would 

continue to be developed on an as-needed basis 

throughout the planning area. These small 

distribution systems would include all uses such 

as electrical lines, gas and water pipelines, and 
Chapter 5

864

access roads. These distribution systems would 

be authorized when consistent with 

environmental and land use considerations.‖ 

Additionally, the text should include ―as well as

the values and plans of the surrounding 

communities.‖

Response (EI-13):

Refer to Section 2.7.1.2, Lands and Realty, first 

paragraph under the allocation Land Use 

Authorizations.

Public Comments (EI-13):

Comment: 6.Alternative A - Pages 44 & 45, 

2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty, Utility and 

Transportation Corridors and Communication 

Sites: All alternatives should include this 

statement from Alternative A: ―Small utility 

distribution systems would continue to be 

developed on an as-needed basis throughout the 

planning area. These small distribution systems 

would include all uses such as electrical lines, 

gas and water pipelines, and access roads. These 

distribution systems would be authorized when 

consistent with environmental and land use 

considerations.‖ Please add the following to the 

above statement, as well as the values and plans 

of the surrounding communities. ̈ (Individual, 

Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #1331, 

letter #282)

Public Concern (EI-14): 

Respondent believes that the BLM needs to 

clarify the statement referring to discretionary 

surface-disturbing activities in Section 2.7.1.6.

Response (EI-14):

Discretionary surface-disturbing activities are 

those where the Field Manager has the option to 

authorize or not authorize a land use action, 

based on a variety of factors. Land use 

authorizations that are compatible, or can be 

designed or mitigated to be compatible with 

allocated DFCs, can be authorized and 

implemented.

Public Comments (EI-14):

Comment: Concerning statement in Section 

2.7.1.6 Page 224, column 2, 2nd paragraph, 

―Discretionary surface-disturbing activities,‖ 

commenter states, ―Need to clarify this 

statement. Almost any activity can disturb the 

surface.‖ (The State of Az Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1388, 

letter #401).

Public Concern (EI-15): 

Respondent believes that the BLM needs to 

define ―semi-primitive motorized corridor.‖

Response (EI-15): 

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is 

the BLM‘s framework to inventory, plan, and 

manage recreational opportunities. The ROS is 

divided into six classes, ranging from essentially 

natural, low-use areas (resource-dependent 

recreational opportunities) to highly developed, 

intensive-use areas (facility/vehicle-dependent 

recreational opportunities). Each class is defined 

in terms of three principal components: the 

environmental setting, the activities possible, 

and the experiences that can be achieved.

The primary factor in determining ROS classes 

is the setting. This describes the overall outdoor 

environment in which activities occur, 

influences the types of activities, and ultimately 

determines the types of recreation that can be 

achieved.

Semi-Primitive Motorized setting consists of a 

mostly natural landscape with some evidence of 

others (but numbers and frequency of contact 

seem to remain low) and few management 

controls. Activities include hunting, climbing, 

vehicle trail riding, back country driving, 

mountain biking, hiking, and snowmobiling. The 

experience provides for isolation from human 

civilization, a high degree of interaction with the 

natural environment, and a moderate degree of 

personal risk and challenge.

Public Comments (EI-15):

Comment: Alternative E - pg 177, section 

2.6.2.2.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics Please 

define ―semi-primitive motorized corridor‖. 

(Black Canyon Trail Coalition, In, Black 

Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #1258, letter 

#280)
Chapter 5

865

Public Concern (EI-16): 

Respondents feel that the word ―current‖ in 

Section 2.6.2.2.1.6 needs to be deleted.

Response (EI-16): 

The word ―current‖ will be deleted. However, 

new routes could be proposed where appropriate 

to protect resource values, ensure visitor safety, 

enhance recreation opportunities, or connect 

route networks as part of an approved Travel 

Management Plan.

Public Comments (EI-16): 

Comment: 1.Alternative E - pg 177, section 

2.6.2.2.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics ―Desired 

Future Condition: Delete the word ―current‖ 

from the sentence that reads ―Manage the 

current motorized segment of the Black Canyon 

Trail, which crosses this allocation, as a semiprimitive motorized corridor.‖ Section 

2.6.2.2.1.9 Travel Management, subsection titled 

―Management Actions‖ allows 2 years after plan 

approval to ―Complete an OHV designation for 

all existing and proposed motorized (OHV) 

routes‖―. Proposed routes, by definition, would 

not be current routes at the time of plan 

approval. Does this mean that proposed routes 

would not be allowed at all, or merely that they 

would not be managed as part of the semiprimitive motorized corridor‖ (Individual, Black 

Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #1316, letter 

#282)

Public Concern (EI-17): 

Respondent believes that the statement ―reveal 

minimum evidence of other visitors‖ in Section 

2.7.1.6 needs to be reworded.

Response (EI-17): 

The entire sentence with the word ―minimum‖ 

will be deleted.

Public Comments (EI-17): 

Comment: Section 2.7.1.6 Page 224, column 1, 

1st bullet Statement Reveal minimum evidence 

of other visitors Comment. This needs to 

reworded. Reveal is an action causing or 

allowing something to be observed. This 

statement suggests BLM will point out 

minimum evidence of other visitors. What 

constitutes minimum evidence. (The State of Az 

Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ -

Comment: #1384, letter #401)

Public Concern (EI-18): 

Respondent believes that the statement ―The 

effort will then focus on....‖ in Section 2.7.3.7 

needs to be reworded to identify a partnership 

with the AGFD.

Response (EI-18): 

The text is correct as written. The AGFD can be 

involved in this effort as an external agency.

Public Comments (EI-18): 

Comment: Concerning Section 2.7.3.7 Page 

259, column 1, 2nd paragraph, ―The effort will 

then focus on....‖ Commenter states, 

―Developing a Limits of Acceptable Change 

framework needs to be done in partnership with 

AFGD.‖ (The State of Az Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1392, 

letter #401)

Public Concern (EI-19):

Respondent believes that the shading that 

distinguishes the land management agencies is 

difficult to discern and should be made clearer.

Response (EI-19):

We recognize that the map referenced in your 

comment is of a small scale that can be difficult 

to distinguish land patterns. Its purpose is to 

give a very general representation of where the 

planning area lays in relationship to the state of 

Arizona. Additional cross hatching within the 

map was not carried forward as it resulted in a 

much poorer quality map for reproduction 

purposes. The plan has many detailed maps as a 

part of the description of the various 

management decisions and they are referenced 

throughout the document. We believe that these 

maps adequately address land management 

within the planning area.
Chapter 5

866

Public Comments (EI-19):

Comment: Maps Section Purpose and Need, 

page s-xiii: Shading that distinguishes the land 

management agencies is difficult to discern. We 

recommend alternative methods (e.g., cross 

hatch, stipple with shading) to make the areas 

clearer to the reader. (Arizona Department of 

Transportation, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1448, 

letter #397)

Public Concern (EI-20):

Respondent believes that that the word 

―requiring‖ should be removed from the 

statement: ―evaluate non-motorized trails 

between Bull Tank and Baby Canyon, between 

Badger Springs/Agua Fria Confluence and 

Pueblo Plata, and in other areas if needed, to 

enhance resource protection by encouraging or 

requiring visitors to use designated routes.‖

Response (EI-20):

We believe the flexibility to manage monument 

visitors is essential to protecting its resources. 

The intent is to manage areas where foot traffic 

is high, such as areas of attractions to cultural, 

scenic, biological, geological sites, by requiring 

the use of a trail rather than having a network of 

trails braiding over each other. This will help 

keep visitors from repeatedly trampling on 

sensitive areas; therefore, we require visitors to 

use designated routes wherever they exist. 

Hunting tends to be a dispersed activity which 

generally would not lead to trail braiding. In 

areas where hunting impacts become noticeable, 

adaptive management actions would be 

necessary. 

Public Comments (EI-20):

Comment: Section 2.6.1.6 Page 165, column 1, 

paragraph 2 Statement Evaluate non-motorized 

trails between Bull Tank and Baby Canyon, 

between Badger Springs/Agua Fria Confluence 

and Pueblo Plata, and in other areas if needed, to 

enhance resource protection by encouraging or 

requiring visitors to use designated routes. 

Comment: This management action would 

severely limit hunting and other wildlifedependent recreation if applied. The Department 

does not support this type of management action 

and suggests removing the word "requiring" 

from this sentence. (The State of Az Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1362, letter #401)

Public Concern (EI-21):

Respondents would like BLM to add wording 

about rerouting routes to discussions about 

closing routes in Sections 2.7.15 and 2.7.3.6.

Response (EI-21):

The current wording in the document reflects the 

management direction for the subject areas. If 

rerouting is necessary to protect a resource, used 

for educational enhancement, or to address a 

safety concern, then adaptive management 

measures described in Section 2.7.2.10 

(Transportation Management) would be allowed. 

Public Comments (EI-21):

Comment: Concerning Section 2.7.1.5 Page 

221, column 2, bulleted list,‖ commenter states, 

―Add rerouting routes‖ (The State of Az Game 

and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1380, letter #401)

Comment: Concerning Section 2.7.3.6 Page 

250, column 1, 1st sentence, column 2, 4th 

sentence ―Close transportation routes that lead 

directly to significant sites,‖ commenter states, 

―Change to: Close or reroute transportation 

routes that lead directly to significant sites‖ (The 

State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1391, letter #401).

Public Concerns (EI-22):

Commenter is concerned about whether or not 

hiking or equestrian activities that require an 

Special Recreation Permit (SRP) are required to 

stay on existing trails in all cases.

Response (EI-22):

Yes, non-motorized activities that require a SRP 

would be required to stay on trails.

Public Comments (EI-22):

Concerning Section 2.7.3.8, Page 263, column 1, 

last paragraph, ―Non-motorized activities that 
Chapter 5

867

require SRPs,‖ commenter states, ―We are not 

sure what this means. Would hiking or 

equestrian activities that require an SRP be 

required to stay on existing trails in all cases?‖

(The State of Az Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1394, letter #401)

5.4.17 ENFORCEMENT & 

FUNDING

Public Concern (EF-1): 

Respondents would like to see more funds 

diverted to law enforcement to help deter abuses 

seen on public lands. They believe that without 

more enforcement, the responsible public land 

users will be punished as existing trails are 

closed and archeological sites are looted.. 

Hiring enough people to do the job properly 

would help protect prominent archaeological 

sites and keep access open to OHV 

recreationists.

Response (EF-1): 

Law enforcement and other staffing needs are 

not RMP decisions. We recognize more human 

oversight is needed to give adequate protection 

to cultural sites on the monument and 

throughout the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area. Management prescriptions in the 

proposed plan are designed to improve site 

protection. Continued and expanded 

relationships with the Arizona Site Stewards and 

the Friends of the Agua Fria National Monument 

have the potential to increase the human 

presence. We continue to pursue increased 

staffing, but must expand a presence in any way 

possible.

Public Comments (EF-1): 

Comment: Kind of a question here, did you 

guys come up with a new bank role for 

enforcement? Because to be honest with you, if 

you can't enforce it you are only punishing the 

responsible user. We don't get to, we'll go out 

there and we'll abide by the rules, but we're the 

only ones that are punished. Everyone else still 

goes out and does what they want to do. If you 

can't enforce it, we're the only one you're 

hurting, the people who show up and the people 

who are part of this plan. (Individual, Phoenix, 

AZ - Comment: #68, letter #82)

Comment: I believe it is necessary for the plan 

to include a greater investment in monitoring 

archaeological resources. Signs placed at 

archaeological sites warning of penalties for 

vandalism and looting are insufficient to protect 

these fragile resources. The region has a long 

history of looted archaeological sites and the 

increased numbers of visitors will only increase 

the problem. Regular monitoring by law 

enforcement personnel during peak visitor 

periods (i.e. weekends) is necessary. This would 

also be useful to monitor ATV use and other 

visitor activity. During all of my visits to the 

area, I have never seen law enforcement 

personnel. (Individual - Comment: #1488, letter 

#333)

Public Concern (EF-2): 

Several comments were received addressing 

funding. Respondents feel BLM needs to figure 

out a way to increase Federal funding, including 

asking Congress to fund a performance bond, 

for their lands in order to implement proper 

management strategies.

Response (EF-2):

These concerns are beyond the scope and intent 

of this RMP and we encourage the commenter to 

share these concerns with their elected officials.

Public Comments (EF-2):

Comment: While funding appears not to be 

explicitly considered in the development of the 

Management Plan, it appears that concerns about 

funding are shaping the direction of the planning 

in all alternatives. Funding the proposed 

development will, of course, be a challenge, 

particularly in the current economic 

environment. As long as the Monument remains 

relatively unknown, the demand will stay small, 

but so will the level of public support. BLM, 

with its new National Monument responsibilities 

must figure out a way to position its National 

Monuments, and notably AFNM in the 

budgeting process so that they receive the same 

sort of generally favorable treatment received by 
Chapter 5

868

NPS parks and monuments. This cannot happen 

all at once, of course, but Agua Fria can be the 

poster child for public demand for BLM and 

BLM should consider funding at Agua Fria, 

even now, to be an investment in public support 

for the BLM monuments generally. Planning for 

anything less than rapid growth of visitor 

demand, would I fear, be disastrous in the (not 

very) long run. (Individual - Comment: #2157, 

letter #297)

Comment: All amenities and roads remain, 

Congress should be asked to fund a performance 

bond sufficient to mitigate for any and all 

impacts that degrade the Monument. (Phoenix 

Zoo, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1184, letter 

#357)

5.4.18 IMPLEMENTATION, 

MITIGATION, AND 

MONITORING 

Public Concern (IP-1): 

Respondents state that there is an absence of 

implementation guidance for many allocations 

and management prescriptions which would 

provide a framework to guide planning 

decisions.

Response (IP-1): 

Implementation actions related to this plan 

would require site-specific analysis of actions 

and proposals as they are brought forward. 

These site specific analyses are specific to the 

type and scope of the proposal and to the 

particular characteristics of the site. 

Implementation actions and possible site 

conditions are too variable to allow a meaningful 

analysis at the landscape level of a RMP. The 

impact analysis that was conducted in the 

DRMPs/DEIS reflects the landscape scope of 

the planning document.

Public Comments (IP-1): 

Comment: RMP Information management 

Section 2.11 (Administrative Actions) states -

"Although BLM's intent and commitment to 

accomplish administrative actions are generally 

addressed in RMP/EIS-level documents, such 

activities are neither land-use-plan-level 

decisions nor implementation-level 

management-action decisions." Regardless as to 

how these actions are classified, providing a 

framework to guide the implementation of 

planning decisions and thereby ensure that 

painstakingly developed desired future 

conditions and management goals are assessed 

reliably and with some defined frequency is a 

crucial RMP feature. Unfortunately, from 

section 2.10 (Implementation and Monitoring) 

on, this plan seems to work hard to evade the 

requirement to provide future managers this 

valuable guidance. Although the BLM is clearly 

allowed discretion, the agency is obligated to 

integrate monitoring, intervals and evaluative 

standards into the RMP (43 CFR 1610.4-9).

(Individual, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1927, 

letter #341)

Comment: From our (ADBSS) 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 guidance as to how these new 

land use allocations and ROS settings are to be 

managed. There is apparently guidance that you 

can do it but 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 few 

formal policies in place is for Visual Resource 

Management (VRM). Formal guidance for the 

host of other land use allocations and settings 

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 or 

invalid. (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, 

Mesa, AZ - Comment: #2142, letter #342)

Public Concern (IP-2):

Respondents feel the RMPs lack definite 

guidance for the future and that a plan lacking 
Chapter 5

869

an implementation and management framework 

which does not explicitly stipulate activities and 

specify timelines will leave so much discretion to 

future managers that perhaps nothing will be 

done. Not identifying responsible entities within 

and beyond the agency responsible for the 

conduct of critical operations is a serious 

oversight.

Response (IP-2):

We disagree; we believe that the RMP provides 

a framework for definitive guidance of the 

management of the public lands within the 

planning area. Site-specific management will be 

accordingly completed through the development 

of plans and implementation of specific 

measures.

Public Comments (IP-2):

Comment: Lacking some sort of definitive 

guidance within the RMP will mean that the 

monitoring, inventory and evaluation efforts in 

support of adaptive management at best will be 

haphazard. The plan shows clear evidence of 

this as it a hodgepodge of good ideas (e.g., 

recreation resources sections 2.7.2.7 and 2.7.3.7) 

which offer the ideas of a limits of acceptable 

change assessment program and adaptive 

management efforts that specify goals and 

timelines. At worst, a plan lacking an 

implementation and management framework 

that does not explicitly stipulate activities and 

specify timelines will leave so much discretion 

to future managers that perhaps nothing will be 

done. In an era of declining budgets and 

progressively fewer agency personnel there may 

well be irresistible temptation to conveniently 

forget about critical management activities.

(Individual, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1928, 

letter #341)

Comment: While there seems to be a 

commitment to adopt adaptive management 

methods, this cannot be left to simply happen by 

accident or through the random efforts of 

monument managers. The Department of 

Interior Departmental Manual (516 DM 4.16) 

provides an explicit definition of adaptive 

management as "a system of management 

practices based on clearly identified outcomes, 

monitoring to determine if management actions 

are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating 

management changes that will best ensure that 

outcomes are met or re-evaluate the outcomes." 

Offering no framework within the RMP that 

stipulates how and when monitoring and 

evaluation activities and does not identify 

responsible entities within and beyond the 

agency responsible for the conduct of these 

critical operations is a serious oversight.

(Individual, Glendale, AZ - Comment: #1929, 

letter #341)

Public Concern (IP-3): 

Respondents suggest that the BLM use 

scientifically valid and repeatable monitoring to 

demonstrate no undue harm to the monument's 

objects and to justify management actions 

because protecting the diversity and number of 

species in the monument is inherent to the 

proclamation. Promoting the ecological health 

of monument ecosystems is important and the 

plan should require sufficient monitoring of 

biological resources and habitat to allow the 

BLM to take corrective action as required. BLM 

needs to implement and fund vigorous 

monitoring techniques in order to properly 

manage the resources.

Response (IP-3): 

Effective monitoring is the process of collecting 

data and information in order to determine 

whether or not desired outcomes (expressed as 

goals and objectives in the land use plan) are 

being met (or progress is being made toward 

meeting them) as the allowable uses and 

management actions are being implemented. 

A monitoring strategy must be developed as part 

of the land use plan that identifies indicators of 

change, acceptable thresholds, methodologies, 

protocols, and timeframes that will be used to 

evaluate and determine whether or not desired 

outcomes are being achieved. 

The monitoring process should collect 

information in the most cost-effective manner 

and may involve sampling or remote sensing. 

Monitoring could be so costly as to be 

prohibitive if it is not carefully and reasonably 
Chapter 5

870

designed. Therefore, it is not necessary or 

desirable to monitor every management action 

or direction. Unnecessary detail and 

unacceptable costs can be avoided by focusing 

on key monitoring questions and proper 

sampling methods. 

The level and intensity of monitoring will vary, 

depending on the sensitivity of the resource or 

area and the scope of the proposed management 

activity. 

We will determine specific areas where 

comprehensive site assessments would be 

initiated to do the following:

determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

define desired conditions and standards, 

establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses, and 

determine a route maintenance standard and 

document current status of each route. 

BLM and the BLM‘s Resource Advisory 

Committee are developing OHV-based Land 

Health Standards ands Guidelines for OHV 

Management. We will monitor OHV route and 

route network use to determine if Land Health 

Standards are being met, and to identify, reduce,

or eliminate other resource and social conflicts. 

The narrative and guidance above has been 

addressed in the Management Common to All 

Action Alternatives Section in Chapter 2 of this 

document.

Public Comments (IP-3): 

Comment: The BLM should use of 

scientifically valid and repeatable monitoring to 

demonstrate no undue harm to the Monument's 

objects and to justify management actions.

(Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ -

Comment: #1568, letter #338)

Comment: Monitoring - While this is an 

implementation level aspect, the RMP should 

establish the working framework as to how and 

when it will be done, who is charged with 

defining the key questions that it must address 

and develop the monitoring strategy that will 

enable the evaluation of the plan. Presumably, 

the agency technical staff will develop a set of 

indicators that can be quantified and compared 

statistically, is realistic, fits within budgetary 

constraints and eliminates any data collection 

work that does not answer key needs. This group 

can also develop the standard assessment and 

reporting methods needed. This vital first step 

will ensure an efficient and systematic effort 

with continuity between changing agency 

personnel and help avoid setting up a situation in 

which management becomes more crisis 

response than proactive stewardship. Evaluation 

- Some sort of fundamental and periodic 

evaluation schedule should be established at the 

outset to ensure that management stays 

proactive, essential monitoring data is available 

for use, and explicit personnel are charged with 

the conduct of this activity. A lack of an 

inception plan may mean that the needed 

evaluations do not take place or occur only after 

resource degradation is severe. This could be as 

simple as putting in place in the RMP the 

requirement that desired future 

conditions/outcomes are examined every couple 

of years to determine how things are proceeding 

as well as fine-tuning monitoring efforts. At 

longer intervals, managers could be required to 

assess the attainment of broader objectives for 

the monument as a whole. (Individual, Glendale, 

AZ - Comment: #1930, letter #341)

Public Concern (IP-4): 

Respondents believe BLM must provide specific 

mitigation measures that seek to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to sensitive 

resources within the preferred alternative and 

the impact sections of the RMPs for each 

proposed management action. These should 

include roads, grazing decisions, and 

recreational proposals such as OHV 

designations.

Response (IP-4): 

Management decisions on the national 

monument are limited by any potential for 

adverse effects to the resources and objects of 

the monument. The plan says in many places 

that monitoring for impacts to monument 
Chapter 5

871

resources will be conducted and we will mitigate 

if adverse impacts are determined. Monitoring 

of the effects of Bloody Basin Road is included 

in this adaptive management approach. Section 

2.7.2.7 contains a discussion of Adaptive 

Management related to recreation on the 

national monument.

The proposed transportation plan will reduce 

public access and potential adverse impacts on 

the most vulnerable areas of archaeological sites 

in the monument. However, as new sites are 

discovered, and levels of visitation increase in 

future years, the BLM may identify new threats 

or adverse impacts to cultural resources. Routes 

open to vehicle use will be monitored for 

impacts to resources. A cultural resource 

specialist will be included on teams responsible 

for developing and implementing the monitoring 

standards and processes. Monitoring procedures 

will take into consideration the intensity and 

type of OHV use, the relative density and 

sensitivity of cultural resources in the area, and 

the potential for adverse indirect and cumulative 

impacts, including route proliferation. 

When monitoring is proposed to assess potential 

effects from route designation, the decision 

record will clarify which mitigation actions will 

be taken; when they will be taken; and how their 

effectiveness will be assessed and ensured. The 

specific mitigation measures will depend on the 

specific situation. Mitigation measures may 

include, but need not be limited to, one or more 

of the following actions.

Installing new signs that clearly designate 

the problem areas as off-limits to vehicles.

Increasing the presence of staff and 

volunteers in sensitive areas during high-use 

periods, to discourage off-road travel and 

provide information on Tread Lightly and 

other guidelines for responsible vehicle use. 

Issuing citations to violators.

Conducting mapping, documentation, or 

limited surface collections to preserve 

information from sensitive archaeological 

sites. 

Installing physical barriers to exclude 

vehicle traffic away from open routes.

Installing measures designed to reduce and 

control erosion.

Reducing travel through limitations on 

seasonal use, speed, or vehicle type.

Implementing emergency closures to restrict 

ongoing damage and install protective 

measures.

Rehabilitating closed routes to eliminate the 

possibility of re-use. 

Changing the designation of an open route 

to ―administrative use‖ or ―closed.‖ The 

route network may be updated, as necessary, 

in any plan maintenance or plan amendment 

process.

Public Comments (IP-4): 

Comment: Furthermore, the plan should state 

that the impacts of vehicular volume, noise, 

speed, dust, and other characteristics will be 

measured and appropriate mitigation actions will 

be taken if monument resources (including 

aesthetics) are compromised. (Friends of the 

Agua Fria National Monument, Glendale, AZ -

Comment: #2060, letter #339)

Comment: The lack of mitigation measures 

appears to be directly related to the Draft RMP's 

failure to adequately analyze the direct and 

indirect impacts associated with the 

transportation plan. The Draft RMP does suggest 

mitigation measures for OHV use where OHV 

use is determined to be inconsistent with the 

Monument's management objectives, i.e., 

"closing routes," "limiting seasonal use," 

"limiting vehicle types, speeds, and noise," 

"rerouting offending route segments," and 

"modifying routes to reduce or eliminate 

conflicts." Id. at 2-241. While we support these 

mitigation measures with respect to OHV use 

designations, we remain concerned that 

mitigation measures designed to mitigate those 

impacts associated with roads are not fully 

evaluated and integrated into the resource 

management planning process. We recommend 

that BLM provide specific mitigation measures 

seeking to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects to identified and unidentified cultural 

resources within the environmental 

consequences analysis of the RMP for the 

transportation and access decisions. Further, if 
Chapter 5

872

BLM is using the "Route 

Evaluation/Designation Decision Tree Process" 

to designate roads and routes within the 

Monument, we strongly recommend that BLM 

incorporate more specific methods of mitigation 

based on detailed information about cultural 

resources for roads it determines can be 

"opened" without causing adverse impacts to 

these resources into the Final RMP. (Individual, 

National Trust for Historic Preservation,

Washington, D.C. - Comment: #1804, letter 

#402)

5.4.19 INVENTORY OF 

RESOURCES

Public Concern (IV-1): 

For the affected environment, commenters 

believe BLM must seek to provide appropriate, 

specific baseline information about cultural, 

wildlife, special status plants, and other 

sensitive resources, in order to comply with 

NEPA and the Monument Proclamation and to 

evaluate the broad range of impacts 

encompassed by a NEPA analysis. 

Response (IV-1):

We believe the RMP adequately addresses the 

affected area within the planning area and meets 

the legal mandates required for the agency. 

However, for further information, an additional 

table describing special status species 

occurrence and habitat use in the planning areas 

has been added as Appendix U and riparian 

habitat condition data is presented in Appendix 

Q1 and Q2.

Public Comments (IV-1):

Comment: Without an adequate inventory and 

evaluation that create a baseline of knowledge of 

cultural, wildlife, special status plants, and other 

sensitive resources, the agencies are unable to 

fulfill their obligation to analyze impacts under 

NEPA or to preserve "monument objects." For 

example, in regard to cultural resources, the 

draft RMP states that, "one can reasonably 

expect that several thousand prehistoric and 

historic sites remain undiscovered on public 

lands in the planning areas" (3.6) Draft RMP at 

404. The Monument's cultural sites, as 

previously noted, are Monument objects that the 

agencies are required to preserve, yet there is 

little information presented on which to assess 

whether these resources are being adequately 

protected. Further, BLM does not attempt to 

provide a baseline of cultural resources that have 

been damaged or destroyed by OHV, vandalism, 

or other activities to date. Without adequate 

baseline information about cultural resources, it 

is difficult to understand the extent to which the 

roads will impact these significant resources, 

and to evaluate and mitigate the potential 

impacts, especially the areas where the roads 

will remain open or mitigated open. Another 

example is pronghorn, where the RMP states 

that the species is present, but the only 

population data presented is part of a summary 

of all large game species, that "recent drought 

conditions have generally affected large game 

population trends." (3.5.3) Draft RMP at 398. 

Without an adequate inventory or understanding 

of the sensitive resources in the planning area, 

especially in areas where motorized travel will 

occur, it will be difficult to understand the extent 

to which the proposed transportation network 

will affect sensitive resources over the life of the 

plan. Recommendation: Because the disclosure 

and identification of cultural and other sensitive 

resources is critical to BLM's required NEPA 

analysis of the potential environmental impacts 

associated with proposed actions for each 

alternative, BLM must seek to provide 

appropriate, specific baseline information about 

cultural resources. In order to comply with the 

requirements of NEPA and the Monument 

Proclamation, the agencies must gather baseline 

data on all sensitive resources, but especially for 

each of the "Monument objects" identified in the 

management framework section of these 

comments. If the data are not readily available, 

the agencies must collect them using a reliable 

sampling strategy that focuses first on the areas 

most vulnerable to damage from routes and 

motorized travel. The agencies should assess 

which areas are likely to be vulnerable, which 

would likely focus on open motorized travel 

routes proposed. These data and analyses must 

be used in the EIS to present a full picture of the 

location, status, and trends of sensitive 
Chapter 5

873

resources, such as cultural sites and wildlife, in 

order to comply with NEPA's requirement to 

consider direct, indirect and cumulative 

(including reasonably foreseeable future) 

environmental impacts. (The Wilderness 

Society/AZ Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO -

Comment: #2225, letter #343)

Comment: Establishing baseline conditions for 

the affected environment is an essential 

requirement of the NEPA process. In order to 

evaluate the broad range of impacts 

encompassed by a NEPA analysis, it is critical 

that BLM adequately and accurately describe the 

environment that will be affected by the 

proposed action under consideration - the 

"affected environment." 40 C.F.R. 1502.15. The 

importance of accurate baseline data have been 

emphasized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, which stated that "without 

establishing . . . baseline conditions . . . there is

simply no way to determine what effect [an 

action] will have on the environment, and 

consequently, no way to comply with NEPA." 

Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Marketing Ass'n v. 

Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988). The 

court further held that, "The concept of a 

baseline against which to compare predictions of 

the effects of the proposed action and reasonable 

alternatives is critical to the NEPA process." 

Ibid. However, the agencies have failed in this 

regard. In most cases, the "affected 

environment" section of the draft RMP/EIS 

simply notes presence of a wildlife species or 

sensitive resource, with virtually no data on the 

location, status, or future trends of any species 

of concern. As noted above, the agency spent 

many resources collecting data on the location, 

use, and condition of routes across the Planning 

Area as part of the "route inventory process." It 

is irresponsible that the agency would not 

expend comparable resources to gather similar 

quantities of data on the resources it is required 

by law to protect. (The Wilderness Society/AZ 

Wilderness Coalit., Denver, CO - Comment: 

#2224, letter #343)

5.4.20 PUBLIC 

PARTICIPATION

Public Concern (PP-1): 

Respondents encourage partnerships to 

implement Alternative E. Many appreciate how 

BLM implemented a planning process that 

gathered community input at the beginning of 

the planning effort and throughout the planning 

area. Some thank the BLM for providing an 

additional public meeting in Prescott, but others 

think that more care should be taken to select

locations and times that would better allow 

residents to attend. Several commenters believe 

BLM did an admirable job of capturing the 

public’s opinion and presenting it in the various 

plan alternatives while others feel that 

government agencies always ask for input but 

that the document did not reflect their views. 

Response (PP-1):

The Phoenix District and the Hassayampa Field 

Office thank you for your support of our 

proposed plan. The challenge of managing 

multiple-use public land is to recognize the 

primary focus of the lands while attempting to 

allow as full a range of other uses, and at the

same time, protecting the long-term productivity 

of the land. The Phoenix District believes we 

have achieved the best combination of these 

things in our Proposed Plan and understands that 

successful implementation of the plan depends 

very highly on participation by citizens through 

volunteerism and partnerships. 

Public Comments (PP-1):

Comment: The Friends of the Agua Fria River 

Basin would like to congratulate the BLM on 

working toward the goal of building lasting 

collaborative partnerships with the public. Once 

this plan is final it will be a model for future 

land use plans. It will demonstrate how the BLM 

and the public can work together to create a plan 

that will reflect the public's input as well as 

sustain the health, diversity and productivity of 

our public lands for the use and enjoyment of 

present and future generations. (Friends of the 

Agua Fria River Basin, Mayer, AZ - Comment: 

#455, letter #239)
Chapter 5

874

Comment: At the onset I would like to 

congratulate the BLM for implementing a 

planning process that gathered community input 

throughout the planning area at the very 

beginning of the planning effort. From meetings 

attended by MCPRD staff, it was evident the 

public had strong opinions on how federal lands 

should be managed. We believe you did an 

admirable job of capturing that opinion and 

presenting it in the various plan alternatives.

(Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Depart, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1450, letter #350)

Comment: In addition I was under the 

impression when we were told "If you don't tell 

us what you want, we won't be able to put it in 

the plan" that our comments would have an 

affect on the alternatives and some of them 

would be included, yet I don't see any of the 

comments included. (Individual - Comment: 

#752, letter #293)

Public Concern (PP-2): 

The Sonoran Audubon Society would like the 

planning document to recognize the Important 

Bird Area designation and the efforts of its 

volunteers.

Response (PP-2): 

Reference to the designation of the Important 

Bird Area in the Agua Fria National Monument 

has been added to Chapter 3. While we greatly 

appreciate the volunteer efforts of the Sonoran 

Audubon, we have chosen not to mention any of 

our many volunteer groups, partners, and 

cooperators specifically in the plan in order to 

avoid trying to be all inclusive and inadvertently 

omitting someone.

Public Comments (PP-2): 

Comment: Given this very high level of 

cooperator partnership between BLM and 

Audubon we would very much like to see the 

Important Bird Area designation and the 

volunteer efforts of Sonoran Audubon Society 

members recognized in this planning document.

(Audubon Arizona, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: 

#1230, letter #279)

5.4.21 RESEARCH, 

EDUCATION, AND 

COLLABORATION

Public Concern (RE-1): 

Respondent believes it is critical that all sites on 

the monument be available for consideration as 

the subject of scientific or historical study, 

including excavation. This allows for important

flexibility in research questions and designs.

Response (RE-1): 

Most of the sites are allocated to the category of 

scientific use and will be available for 

consideration as the subject of scientific study. 

A limited number of sites are allocated to 

 ̳conservation for future use,‘ which does not 

preclude their use in scientific studies. Most of 

the sites allocated to this category are in the 

more remote zones of monument, where there 

will be an emphasis on the maintenance of 

primitive conditions and wilderness 

characteristics. The intent is to direct more 

intensive research activities toward sites that can 

yield important information, but are more 

accessible, vulnerable to damage from visitors, 

and suitable for interpretive development. At 

sites allocated to conservation use, scientific 

studies normally will be limited to surveys, 

mapping, and other noninvasive documentation 

methods. However, following BLM Manual 

8110, the BLM could specify provisions that 

would allow for scientific excavations, under 

limited circumstances. The permit applicant 

would need to justify why this work would be a 

critical component of an approved research 

design, and why comparable information could 

not be obtained elsewhere in the monument.

Public Comments (RE-1): 

Comment: Archaeological national monuments 

protect archaeological resources not only for 

public viewing and education but also for further 

research so that the cultures that produced the 

archaeological record can be understood in 

greater depth. The most successful 

archaeological National Parks and Monuments 

protect multiple sites across fairly large 
Chapter 5

875

landscapes so that a community-level 

understanding of the past can be gained through 

sustained research. Two parks and monuments at 

which I have conducted research over the past 

twenty years include Hopewell Culture National 

Historical Park, which protects a series of Ohio 

Hopewell earthwork sites, and Salinas Pueblo 

Missions National Monument, which protects 

three missionized pueblos in central New 

Mexico. In both cases, comparative field work 

conducted by a series of researchers across 

multiple sites has substantially enhanced our 

understanding of the peoples and activities that 

created these sites. Moreover, active research 

enhances the experience of monument visitors. 

At both these parks, while we were in the field 

our projects became a component of the 

interactive interpretive offerings of the 

monuments. Visitors appreciated the opportunity 

to interact with archaeologists who were in the 

process of collecting further information on the 

places they were visiting. AFNM presents a 

similarly important opportunity to investigate 

the relationships among different components of 

the community that was created there in the late 

1200s, and that was the impetus for the original 

creation of the monument. It is critical that all 

sites on the monument be available for 

consideration as the subject of scientific or 

historical study, including excavation. Different 

research designs will require access to different 

kinds of sites on the AFNM landscape. Since the 

permitting process keeps the BLM in control of 

exactly what research activities take place where 

on the monument, the management plan should 

allow all sites to be the potential focus of 

research. This is important for flexibility in 

research questions and research designs. (ASU 

School of Human Evolution and Social Change,

Tempe, AZ - Comment: #1978, letter #325)

Public Concern (RE-2): 

Respondent feels the benefits of a teaching 

component to research should not be overlooked 

in development of the management plan.

Response (RE-2): 

We agree that teaching is an important 

component to research, and fully support the 

opportunities that research provides. The 

proclamation for the Agua Fria National 

Monument recognized the potential that this 

important area provides and so states. 

Public Comments (RE-2): 

Comment: Research routinely involves 

collaboration with students. In my experience, 

teaching collaborative ecology-archaeology field 

seminars at AFNM has substantially enhanced 

the knowledge about socioenvironmental 

interaction at the monument while contributing 

to the development of both undergraduate and 

graduate student research skills. In fact, several 

of the papers given in previous AFNM research 

seminars will be presented at the 2006 Annual 

Meeting of the Society for American 

Archaeology. The benefits of a teaching 

component to research should not be overlooked 

as the monument develops its management plan.

(ASU School of Human Evolution and Social 

Change, Tempe, AZ - Comment: #1980, letter 

#325)

Public Concern (RE-3): 

Respondents strongly support emphasis on 

collaborative research partnerships in plan.

Response:

Interest in research includes many entities 

besides BLM. Collaborating on research will 

help assure the monument achieves its scientific 

potential and is regarded as a critical component 

of a productive, state-of-the-art science program 

in the monument, which will provide benefits to 

resource management strategies, as well as 

teaching and the advancement of knowledge. 

We plan to sustain existing partnerships and 

foster new ones.

Public Comments (RE-3): 

Comment: Research. There is a lot that we don't 

know about the monument and it presents 

exciting opportunities for a great variety of 

archaeological and natural science research. 

Over the next 20 years, the monument should 

pursue, with partners in universities and 

elsewhere, a deliberate program of serious 

research in at least the fields of archaeology and 

ecology. It would be useful for the Monument to 

constitute a scientific advisory committee to 
Chapter 5

876

help design (and implement) this effort. The 

results of this research program, and to a limited 

extent the actual scientific research process, 

should be integrated into the interpretive 

program discussed briefly below. A coupled 

research/interpretive program would make the 

monument unique and make it uniquely 

effective as an educational resource (including 

to those not really seeking any education) while 

contributing to the advancement of science.

(Individual - Comment: #2155, letter #297)

Comment: I strongly support the emphasis on 

establishing and maintaining collaborative 

research partnerships with academic institutions, 

professional and non-profit organizations, tribal 

governments, and avocational organizations. 

Such partnerships bring critical resources, 

knowledge, and personnel to BLM efforts to 

understand, interpret, and monitor the AFNM 

landscape and its resources, while also providing 

many benefits to these diverse partners. 

Collaborative enterprises are win-win situations

for all concerned. (ASU School of Human 

Evolution and Social Change, Tempe, AZ -

Comment: #1983, letter #325)

Public Concern (RE-4): 

Respondents feel education is the key to protect 

the land. They would like to see collective 

communities and users of the lands educate each 

other about ―not doing the wrong things,‖ and 

have them contribute to rehabilitating the lands, 

through clean ups and maintaining trails. This 

will be especially important in implementing the 

preferred alternative.

Response (RE-4): 

Community and citizen involvement with this 

plan was paramount in the development of the 

document. Continued involvement is essential 

for the implementation of the actions found 

within the plan. We fully intend to engage the 

communities, groups and citizens. We are

counting on their continued participation to help 

BLM achieve the goals of the plan.

Public Comments (RE-4): 

Comment: I would like to see us as our 

collective communities, users of these lands, 

educate ourselves, each other and people coming 

into with whatever use they wish to make of our 

lands, educate those people, have them 

contribute in the clean ups and the maintenance 

of trails. (Individual, Scottsdale, AZ - Comment: 

#159, letter #78)

Comment: Although the draft RMP is laced 

with statements such as "...importance of 

collaborative stewardship as a strategy for 

implementation" (section 1.4.2), "communities 

will be engaged" (section 1.5.2.1), "establish 

criteria through external collaboration to 

determine when monument values are at risk" 

and "&develop partnerships" (section 2.7.2.7,) 

there is no indication and as to when and how 

the BLM will involve the public in decisionmaking, develop volunteer groups or perhaps 

formal partnerships and contracts to carry out 

the vital operations needed to conserve 

resources. The clear trend is an ever-increasing 

agency reliance on the public, educational 

institutions, conservation groups and other 

organized interests in such matters and this plan 

should get ahead of the curve. This RMP neither 

offers managers guidance as to how to proceed 

nor does it even make a commitment to 

undertake these endeavors that might make a 

significant contribution to the plan outcome. For 

example, the BLM has fostered a successful 

"Friends of the Agua Fria National Monument" 

group that has already conducted service 

activities on the monument and attracted 

considerable public interest. It seems odd that 

there is no mention as to how this effort fits into 

the overall management plan or how the 

FAFNM group success could serve as a template 

for other groups in the future. This is a serious 

omission. Agency personnel and the cadre of 

citizen volunteers are all going to change over 

the lifetime of this RMP. With an agency master 

strategy and oversight, managers can generate a 

sustained effort that extends beyond the working 

lifetime of a few key individuals or agency 

personnel and employ citizen volunteers 

efficiently. (Individual, Glendale, AZ -

Comment: #1932, letter #341)

Public Concern (RE-5): 

Respondents want to emphasize the importance 

of public education and appropriate 
Chapter 5

877

interpretation in the monument. They feel that 

BLM's planning must be designed to realize the 

potential of the monument with respect to 

archaeological and natural resource education 

and that the audiences that must be most 

strongly attended to are visitors from the 

Phoenix metropolitan area and 1-17 travelers. 

BLM should provide relevant materials for 

interpreted cultural sites while minimizing 

obtrusive signage so that visitors can learn and 

understand the significance of the irreplaceable 

resources at Agua Fria and continue 

collaboration with Hopi. 

Response (RE-5): 

We agree that the monument has extraordinary 

potential as an educational resource and that the 

Agua Fria National Monument offers a unique

and excellent opportunity to conduct 

interpretation at the scale of the cultural 

landscape, which would include the portion of 

Perry Mesa in the adjacent Tonto National 

Forest. The monument also provides 

opportunities to incorporate active science into 

interpretive programs.

Interpretation and public education focused on 

the monument‘s archaeological resources within 

the natural ecosystem, are important objectives

in the RMPs and are an important aspect of 

cultural resource protection. Consistent with the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, (16 

U.S.C. 470 ii(c)), each Federal land manager 

shall establish a program to increase public 

awareness of the significance of the 

archaeological resources located on public 

lands...and the need to protect such resources. 

Therefore, the benefits of interpretive 

development and related activities will be 

planned and conducted in ways that are sensitive 

to resource protection and the concerns of 

culturally affiliated Native American tribes, 

while relying on and supporting ongoing 

scientific studies. For these reasons, many sites 

have been excluded from interpretive uses. 

Partnerships will be crucial to the 

implementation of effective educational 

materials and activities for adults and children, 

which will contribute to resource protection in 

the long run. We look forward to working with 

various partners to achieve these objectives. We 

agree that collaboration with the Hopi and other 

tribes, who have strong cultural ties to the area, 

could contribute substantially to the research and 

interpretive programs. The Hopi are extremely 

interested and not particularly supportive of 

extensive educational or interpretive programs. 

However, we will continue to seek tribal 

perspectives and incorporate them into such 

programs.

Public Comments (RE-5): 

Comment: We [the Hopi tribe] request 

continuing consultation on the selection and 

allocation of our ancestral sites interpretive 

development, educational uses, visitation, and 

scientific uses. (Hopi Cultural Preservation 

Office, Kykotsmovi, AZ - Comment: #1153, 

letter #384)

Comment: The Agua Fria National Monument 

is a tremendous resource in terms of 

archaeological and ecological resources. I have 

been fortunate to be involved with 

archaeological research on the monument and 

become familiar with the area. The AFNM has 

tremendous possibilities with regards to 

recreation and interpretation and I look forward 

to continue visiting the monument in the future. 

After reviewing the draft management plan I 

have the following comments. I would like to 

see the education and interpretation of the 

monument resources be more highlighted within 

the plan. I believe there is a primary focus in the 

management plan on recreation and preservation 

aspects. The monument has a tremendous 

possibility to interpret and educate the public 

about Arizona archaeology and natural 

resources. The proximity to Sunset Point Rest 

Area and the Phoenix metropolitan area means 

that the visitor use will only increase over time.

(Individual - Comment: #1486, letter #333)

Public Concern (RE-6): 

Respondents would like to explore ways to 

cooperatively interpret the important riparian 

habitat along Morgan City Wash near Lake 

Pleasant Dam for the benefit of public 

education.
Chapter 5

878

Response (RE-6): 

BLM agrees with your proposal to explore ways 

to cooperatively interpret the important riparian 

habitat along Morgan City Wash near Lake 

Pleasant Dam and interpret and protect the 

cultural resources for the benefit of public 

education. 

Public Comments (RE-6): 

Comment: [The following actions are elements 

of the RMP I believe would fit well within the 

mission of MCPRD, and would be areas where 

cooperative management between out two 

agencies might serve the public well:] Protection 

and interpretation of the Morgan City Wash 

proposed "Wilderness Characteristics" area -

MCPRD presently has established a 

conservation education area at the important 

riparian habitat along Morgan City Wash near 

Lake Pleasant Dam. We support your proposed 

management actions to protect the watershed of 

this riparian area as stated in Alternative E, and 

would like to explore ways to cooperatively 

interpret this unique watershed and associated 

riparian habit for the benefit of public education.

(Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Depart, 

Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1455, letter #350)

Comment: [The following actions are elements 

of the RMP I believe would fit well within the 

mission of MCPRD, and would be areas where 

cooperative management between out two 

agencies might serve the public well:] 

Interpretation and protection of important 

cultural resources - around southern portion of 

the HMU and at the northern portion of the 

County's Lake Pleasant Regional Park are 

extensive cultural resource sites we could 

cooperatively interpret and protect. (Maricopa 

County Parks and Recreation Depart, Phoenix, 

AZ - Comment: #1454, letter #350)

Public Concern (RE-7): 

Respondents suggest promoting the Agua Fria 

National Monument by marketing it outside the 

local area. Restaurants, service stations, and 

other facilities where people tend to stop before 

entering the area could be places where written 

publication could be made available. 

Response (RE-7): 

The monument is unique in that is does not 

contain developed amenities like paved roads, 

developed campgrounds, drinking fountains, or a 

visitor center or lodge, which would remain the 

case under the proposed plan. Aside from basic 

visitor amenities such as visitor kiosks, visitor 

registers and information, signing, pit toilets and 

basic trails, most visitor information would be 

available in local communities such as Black 

Canyon City and Cordes Junction. This could 

include community visitor centers, tourist 

destinations, and business in addition to other 

natural and cultural areas and parks throughout 

the state. 

Public Comments (RE-7): 

Comment: Educate mostly by pamphlets (about 

AFNM) and written materials available in 

nearby communities. How about putting them at 

restaurants, service stations, etc., where people 

tend to stop before entering the area. (Individual, 

Black Canyon City, AZ - Comment: #1942, 

letter #353)

Comment: If you want to promote the Agua 

Fria National Monument you must not only 

market the area in our locally area phone books 

in and Around our beauiful area of Page-Lake 

Powell but, outside the different counties in our 

state. Just like the Governor said we all must be 

tourist in our own backyard. Please give all 

necessary information to our different phone 

directories to be published in future phone 

Books. As well as our very own Visitor Center.

(Individual, Page, AZ - Comment: #314, letter 

#27)

5.4.22 E-PLANNING

Public Concern (EP-1): 

Respondents thank the BLM for its willingness 

to present the plan and the ePlanning system to 

their organization. However several 

suggestions were made to improve ePlanning. 

Respondents would like to be able to submit 

multiple comments attached to multiple sections 

and to have a confirmation copy that their 
Chapter 5

879

comments were submitted. They also noted that 

the map viewer was inaccessible from browsers 

other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer and the 

system seemed to suffer from significant periods 

of downtime.

Response (EP-1):

We are forwarding all comments to the 

ePlanning lead for future use by the agency.

Public Comments (EP-1):

Comment: I would also like to let you know 

that the electronic format and the website 

worked well for me as I was really able to utilize 

it to research the project. Thank you for that as 

well. (Individual, Prescott, AZ - Comment: 

#725, letter #231)

Comment: Eplanning and workshops The 

ePlanning online tool provided useful access to 

the plan for people tenacious enough to work 

through the convoluted user interface. While the 

public comment function of the system provides 

an easy way for members of the public to submit 

comment, users are not provided a confirmation 

copy of their comments to submit in case the 

electronic transmission was not properly 

received by the planning staff. In addition, we 

found the map viewer to be inaccessible from 

browsers other than Microsoft's Internet 

Explorer and the system seemed to suffer from 

significant periods of downtime. In spite of these 

flaws, we did find the mapping feature to be 

useful, although future releases should attempt 

to address user interface issues. However, our 

understanding is that the ePlanning system is a 

beta test, and we applaud the BLM for 

attempting to make the plan more accessible to 

the public and look forward to future 

enhancements. (Sierra Club Southwest Regional 

Office, Phoenix, AZ - Comment: #1881, letter 

#340)
880
881

List of Preparers

List of Recipients

Abbreviations and Acronyms

References

Glossary

Additional Tables

Appendices

(A – U)

Index
List of Preparers

882

List of Preparers 

Bureau of Land Management

Teresa A. Raml B.S., Wildlife Biology

31 years in DOI service

District Manager

Clay Templin B.S., Range Management

23 years in BLM service

Field Manager, 

Hassayampa Field Office

Chris Horyza B.S., Range Management

30 years in BLM service

Arizona State Planning and 

Environmental Coordinator

Rem Hawes B.A., Communications

17 years in BLM service

Agua Fria National 

Monument Manager

Tim Hughes B.S., Wildlife Biology

22 years in BLM service

Biological Resources

Penny Foreman B.S., Recreation and Tourism 

Management

24 years in BLM service

Recreation 

Rich Hanson B.S., Recreation Resource 

Administration

30 years in BLM service

Recreation and Wilderness

Mary Skordinsky M.A., Recreation

15 years in BLM service

Recreation

Connie Stone Ph.D., Anthropology

20 years in BLM service

Cultural Resources

Dave Eddy B.S., Geology

25 years in Federal service

Mineral Resources

Kirk Rentmeister B.S., Geology

10 years in Federal Service

Mineral Resources

Matt Plis M. Eng. , Mining Engineering

19 years in DOI service

Mineral Resources

Helen Graham B.S., Biology

16 years in BLM service

Fire Management

Bill Crolly A.S., Forestry

12 years in Federal service

Fire Management

James Maes B.S., Mechanical Engineering Hazardous Materials and 

Air Quality
List of Preparers

883

16 years in Federal service

Jim Andersen B.S., Natural Resource Management Lands and Realty

29 years in BLM service

JoAnn Goodlow M.A., Project Management

8 years in BLM service

Lands and Realty

Lin Fehlmann B.S., Secondary Education 

Biological Resources

30 years in BLM service

Water Rights

Tom Bickauskas B.S., Manufacturing Engineering 

Technology

7 years in U.S.D.A. Forest service

Transportation Management

Christine Tincher B.A., Communication

24 years in DOI service

External Affairs

Demetrius O. Purdie-Williams B.S., Computer Design

7 years in BLM service

Geographic Information 

Systems 

Paul Summers B.S., Geology

39 years in BLM service

Water Resources

Jay Vacca B.S., Biology and Chemistry

7 years in Federal service

Biological Resources

Lillian Robinson M.A., Human Resources

27 years in Federal service

Writer/Editor

Genevieve Johnson B.S., Conservation Biology

4 years in BLM service

Planning & Environmental 

Assistant

Arlene Porras-Tavizon A.A., General College

5 years in BLM service

Planning & Environmental 

Assistant

Matthew Magaletti A.S., Urban and Regional Planning 

3 years in BLM service

Planning & Environmental 

Assistant

Ken McGinty M.A. Geography 

33 years in Federal service

Editor

Carol A. Akerelrea B.S., Technical Communications

7 years in BLM service

Writer/Editor

Randall Henry B.A. Communications

6 years in Federal service

BLM State Writer-Editor 

Public Affairs

Kathy Pedrick M.A., Anthropology

29 years in DOI service

Former Agua Fria 

National Monument 

Manager, Assistant Field 

Manager for Resource Use 

and Protection
List of Preparers

884

Marlynn Spears B.S., Wildlife Management

30 years in BLM service

Former Associate Field 

Manager for Lands and 

Minerals

Jeff Garrett B.S., Geology

23 years in BLM service

Mineral Resources

Helen Graham B.S., Biology

16 years in BLM service

Fire Management

Glenn Joki B.S., Engineering Studies

30 years in BLM service

Fire Management

Sally Olivieri A.S., Forest Technician

7 years in BLM service 

Geographic Information 

Systems and Mapping

Jones & Stokes

Dan Airola M.S., Wildland Resource Science

A.B., Biology

Principal-in-Charge

Jeff Connell, AICP M.A., Public Administration

B.S., Urban and Regional Planning

Project Manager,

Socioeconomics

Mark Meyer, RLA M.N.S., Ecology 

B.S., Design

Project Coordinator,

Visual Resources, 

Recreation

Steve Daus, Ph.D. Ph.D., Ecological Systems Analysis 

M.S., Wildland Resource Science

B.S., Forestry

NEPA, Rangeland 

Management/Grazing

Ron Bass, J.D., AICP Juris Doctor

M.A., Environmental Planning

B.S., Anthropology

NEPA, Legal Review

Sandy Weir, AICP M.S., Geography

B.S., Geography

Lands and Realty, 

Geographic Information 

Systems

Bobby Tuttle M.S., Biology

B.S., Geography/Urban Planning

Biological Resources

Jennifer Zakrowski B.S., Natural Resource Management Public Involvement, Wild 

Horse and Burro 

Management

Katherine Dudley B.S., Geography Geographic Information 

Systems

Bryan Fiedor B.S., Geography Geographic Information 

Systems

Charles Coyle M.A., English Technical Writer/Editor, 
List of Preparers

885

B.A., English Public Health and Safety

Brent Bouldin M.A., Communications

B.S., Communications

Technical Writer/Editor

Barbara Wilson M.S., Biology Biological Resources

B.A., Environmental Management

Amy Gibbons B.S., Biology Biological Resources

Jeff Peters M.A., Geography

B.A., Geology 

Geological and 

Paleontological Resources

Dana McGowan M.A., Anthropology 

B.A., Anthropology

Cultural Resources

Shannon Hatcher B.S., Environmental Science

B.S., Environmental Health and 

Safety

Air Quality

Jon Waggoner M.S., Biology 

B.S., Psychology

Fire Management

John Coy M.S., Ecology 

B.A., Economics

Socioeconomics

Kim Bidle B.S., Environmental Resources Public Involvement

Catherine Rudiger M.A., Translation and Interpretation Spanish Translation

B.A., Philosophy/English

Northland Research

Johna Hutira B.A., Anthropology Cultural Resources

Doug Craig M.A., Anthropology

B.A., History

Cultural Resources

Western Land Group

Tim Wohlgenant M.S., Conservation Biology

B.A., Biology

Lands and Realty

Mandy Metzger Coursework in Political Science Lands and Realty

Ninyo & Moore

Bob McMichael, P.E. M.S., Civil Engineering B.S., Civil 

Engineering

Geological and 

Paleontological Resources 

Hazardous Materials

Beth Abramson-Beck, R.G. M.S., Geological Sciences Geological and 

Paleontological Resources

Kelly Kading, R.G. B.S., Geology Geological and 

Paleontological Resources
List of Preparers

886

Susan Booth Coursework in Geology and 

Cartography

Geological and 

Paleontological Resources

James Kent Associates

Kevin Priester Ph.D., Economic Anthropology 

M.S., Anthropology 

B.S., Psychology

Socioeconomics

Dave Shultz M.S., Civil Engineering

B.S., Civil Engineering

Public Involvement

Socioeconomics

Kristine Komar B.A., History Public Involvement

Socioeconomics

Austin McInerny Consulting

Austin McInerny, AICP M.S., Regional Planning

B.A., Environmental Studies

Public Involvement
List of Recipients 

887

List of Recipients 

Indian Nations, Tribes and Councils

Ak-Chin Indian Community

Gila River Indian Community

Hopi Tribal Council

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Community Council

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe

Federal Agencies

Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Prescott National Forest

Tonto National Forest

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Department of Defense

Air Force

Army Corps of Engineers

Department of Energy

Western Area Power Administration

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Reclamation

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service Department of Justice

Citizenship and Immigration and Naturalization Service Environmental Protection Agency

Arizona State Agencies

Arizona Department of Agriculture

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources

Arizona Department of Transportation

Arizona Department of Water Resources

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona Geological Survey

Arizona State Clearinghouse

Arizona State Historic Preservation Office

Arizona State Land Department

Arizona State Mine Inspector

Arizona State Parks
List of Recipients 

888

Local Agencies

City of El Mirage

City of Goodyear

City of Surprise

La Paz County Board of Supervisors

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

Maricopa County Environmental Services

Maricopa County Flood Control District

Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department

Maricopa County Planning and Development Department

Maricopa County Department of Transportation

Phoenix Parks, Recreation and Library Department

Pinal County Board of Supervisors

Town of Buckeye

Town of Wickenburg

Town of Youngtown

Yavapai County Board of Supervisors

Yavapai County Planning and Zoning Department

Interest Groups

Arizona Archaeological Society

Arizona Cattle Growers Association

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society

Arizona Mining Association

Arizona Mining and Prospecting Association

Arizona Parks and Recreation Association

Arizona Public Service Company

Arizona Roamers

Arizona State Association of Four-Wheel-Drive Clubs, Inc.

Arizona State Horsemen‘s Association

Arizona Wilderness Coalition

Arizona Wool Producers Association

Blue Ribbon Coalition, Inc.

Cyprus Bagdad Copper Company

Defenders of Wildlife

Desert Tortoise Council

El Paso Natural Gas Company

Gila Bend Natural Resource Conservation District

Greater Arizona Bicycling Association-Phoenix Metro Chapter

Greater Arizona Bicycling Association-West Valley Chapter

Greater Arizona Bicycling Association-Prescott Chapter

International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros

International Sonoran Desert Alliance

National Wildlife Federation

The Nature Conservancy, Arizona Chapter

People for the West

Phelps Dodge Corporation
List of Recipients 

889

Salt River Project

Sierra Club-Palo Verde and Southwest Regions,

Sierra Club-Rincon Groups

Center for Biological Diversity

Southwest Minerals Explorers Association

Tonopah Area Coalition

Tonopah Valley Association

Western Pima County Community Council

Wickenburg Natural Resource Conservation District

Wild Horse Organized Assistance

The Wilderness Society, Four Corners

Yavapai Cattle Growers

Elected Representatives

Federal

Senator Jon Kyl

Senator John McCain

Representative Ed Pastor

Representative Rick Renzi

Representative John Shadegg

Representative Jim Kolbe

Representative J.D. Hayworth

State

Governor Janet Napolitano

Secretary of State Janice Brewer 

Senator Marilyn Jarrett (District 19)

Senator Jake Flake (District 5)

Senator Marsha Arzberger (District 25)

Senator Ken Bennett (District 1)

Senator Albert Hale (District 2) 

Representative Manuel V. "Manny" Alvarez (District 25)

Representative Jennifer J. Burns (District 25)

Representative Albert Tom (District 2)

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick (District 2)

Representative Lucy Mason (District 1)

Representative Tom O'Halleran (District 1)

Representative Jack A. Brown (District 5)

Representative Bill Konopnicki (District 5)

Representative Gary L. Pierce (District 19)

Representative Chuck Gray (District 19)
Abbreviations and Acronyms

890

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ACECs: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act

ADEQ: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

ADES: Arizona Department of Economic Security

ADOT: Arizona Department of Transportation

ADR: Arizona Department of Revenue

ADWR: Arizona Department of Water Resources

AFNM: Agua Fria National Monument

AGFD: Arizona Game and Fish Department

ALHS: Arizona Land Health Standards

ALRIS: Arizona Land Resource Information System

AMA: Active Management Area 

AML: Appropriate Management Level (Abandoned Mine Land)

AMP: Allotment Management Plan

AMS: Analysis of the Management Situation

APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

AQCR: Air Quality Control Regulations

ARPA: Archaeological Resources Protection Act

ARS: Arizona Revised Statute

ASLD: Arizona State Land Department

ASM: Arizona State Museum

ASU: Arizona State University

ATV: All-Terrain Vehicle

AUM: Animal Unit Month

BAT: Best Available Technology

BE: Biological Evaluation

BEA: Bureau of Economic Analysis

BLM: Bureau of Land Management

CAA; Clean Air Act

CAP: Central Arizona Project

CEQ: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR: U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

CFS: Cubic feet per second

CHAMP: AGFD Challenged Hunter Access/Mobility Permit

CO: Carbon-monoxide

CRM: Cultural Resource Management

CRMA: Cooperative Recreation Management Area (Alternative A only)

CRPUA: Cultural Resource Public Use Area

CRU: Community Resource Unit

CWA: Clean Water Act

CYL: Cattle Year-Long

CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act

DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DES: Department of Economic Security

DFC: Desired Future Condition

DHS: Department of Homeland Security
Abbreviations and Acronyms

891

DNA: Documentation of land use plan conformance and NEPA Adequacy 

DOI: Department of the Interior

DPC: Desired Plant Community

DRMP: Draft Resource Management Plan

EA: Environmental Assessment

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

EJ: Environmental Justice

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act

EQIA: Environmental Quality Improvement Act

ERMA: Extensive Recreation Management Area

ESA: Endangered Species Act

EO: Executive Order

FCC: Federal Communications Commission

FIL: Fire Intensity Level

FIRE: Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

FLPMA: Federal Land Policy Management Act

FLTFA: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act 

FMP: Fire Management Plan

FMZ: Fire Management Zone

FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact

FR: Federal Register

FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY: Fiscal Year

GMU: Game Management Unit

GUI: Graphical User Interface

HA: Herd Area

HAZMAT: Hazardous Materials

HMA: Herd Management Area

HMP: Habitat Management Plan

HRU: Human Resource Unit

HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

I-17: Interstate 17

IM: Instruction Memorandum

JKA: James Kent Associates 

LAC: Limits of Acceptable Change

LUA: Land Use Allocation

LUP: Land Use Plan

MA: Management Action

MAG: Maricopa Association of Governments

MCAA: Management Common to Action Alternatives

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Levels

MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goals

MFP: Management Framework Plan

MIST: Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics

MLRA: Major Land Resource Area

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding

MPA: Municipal Planning Area

MPO: Mining Plan of Operation

MRMA: Multiple Resource Management Areas (Alternative A only)

MSA: Management Situation Analysis
Abbreviations and Acronyms

892

MU: Management Unit

NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAGPRA: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NCA: National Conservation Areas

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NFDRS: National Fire Danger Rating System

NFP: National Fire Plan

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act

NIFC: National Interagency Fire Center

NOI: Notice of Intent

NO(x): Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRCS: Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP: National Register of Historic Places

OHV: Off-Highway Vehicle

ONA: Outstanding Natural Area

ORV: Off-Road Vehicle 

PCB: Polychlorinated Bi-phenyls

PILT: Payments in Lieu of Taxes

PFC: Proper Functioning Condition

PD: BLM Phoenix District

PM10: Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or smaller

PNC: Potential Natural Community

PPA: Pollution Prevention Act

PSD: Prevention of Significant Deterioration

R&PP: Recreation and Public Purposes

RAC: Resource Advisory Council

RAZ: Regional Analysis Zone

RCA: Resource Conservation Area

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RL: Representative Location

RMA: Riparian Management Area

RMIS: Recreation Management Information System

RMP: Resource Management Plan

RMZs: Recreation Management Zones

RNA: Research Natural Area

ROD: Record of Decision

ROS: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

ROW: Right of Way

SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SCRMA: Special Cultural Resource Management Area

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act

SGM: Spatial Growth Model

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP: Arizona State Implementation Plan

SLUP: Special Land Use Permit

SMA: Special Management Areas 

SRMA: Special Recreation Management Area

SRP: Salt River Project

SRP: Special Recreation Permits

SWCG: Southwest Area Coordinating Group 
Abbreviations and Acronyms

893

T&E: Threatened and Endangered

TGA: Taylor Grazing Act

TSCA: Toxic Substance Control Act

USACE: United States Army Corp of Engineers

USC: United States Code

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

USGS: United States Geological Survey

VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds

VRM: Visual Resource Management

WA: Wilderness Areas

WFIP: Wildland Fire Implementation Plan

WFMP: Wildland Fire Management Policy

WHBA: Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act

WHA Wildlife Habitat Area

WMAs: Wildlife Management Areas

WSA: Wilderness Study Areas (Alternative A only)

WSR: National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

WUI: Wildland-Urban Interface
References

894

References 

Ahlstrom, Richard V.N., Malcolm Adair, R. Thomas Euler, and Robert C. Euler

1992 Pothunting in Central Arizona: The Perry Mesa Archeological Site Vandalism Study. Cultural Resources 

Management Report No. 13. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, and Bureau of Land Management, 

Phoenix.

Ahlstrom, Richard V.N., and Heidi Roberts

1995 Prehistory of Perry Mesa: The Short-Lived Settlement of a Mesa-Canyon Complex in Central Arizona, ca. 

A.D. 1200-1450. Arizona Archaeologist No. 28. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

American Recreation Coalition. 2001. Outdoor Recreation in America 2001.

Available: www.funoutdoors.com/research.html. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. Wildlife 2006: Wildlife Management Program Strategic Plan for the 

Years 2001–2006. Phoenix, AZ. January 22.

________. 1998. Off-Highway Vehicle Strategic Plan 1999-2004. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona State Mine Inspector. 2001. Abandoned Mine Safety Fund Annual Report. Arizona State Mine Inspector.

Available at: www.asmi.state.az.us/safety2001.pdf.

________.2002b. Abandoned Mine Safety Fund Annual Report. Available at: www.asmi.state.az.us/safety2001.pdf.

Barnett, Loyd O., Richard H. Hawkins, and D. Phillip Guertin. 2002. Reconnaissance Watershed and Hydrologic 

Analysis on the Upper Agua Fria Watershed. Prepared in cooperation with the Upper Agua Fria Watershed 

Partnership, funded by the Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative, and administered by Arizona Department of Water 

Resources. Tucson: University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources. 

Buckeye, Town of. 2001. Town of Buckeye General Development Plan. Buckeye, AZ. Adopted September 18.

Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan. Phoenix District, Phoenix, 

AZ. March.

________. 1988. Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan. Washington, DC.

________. 1988a. Phoenix Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Phoenix 

District, Phoenix, AZ. December.

________. 1990. Strategy for Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on Public Lands in Arizona. Instruction 

Memorandum No. AZ-91-16). Arizona State Office, Phoenix, AZ.

________. 1990. Use of Biological Control Agents of Pests on Public Lands. (BLM Manual 9014). Washington, 

DC. October 30.

________. 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. Nevada State Office, Reno, 

NV. May.
References

895

________. 1992. Strategy for Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on Public Lands in Arizona: New Guidance on 

Compensation for the Desert Tortoise. (Instruction Memorandum No. AZ-92-46). Arizona State Office, Phoenix, 

AZ.

________. 1993. Black Canyon Habitat Management Plan (revised). Phoenix Field Office, Phoenix, AZ.

________. 1993. Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Kingman Resource Area Office, Kingman, AZ. September.

________. 1993. Black Canyon Tobosa Grassland Prescribed Burn Environmental Analysis. Phoenix Field 

Office, Phoenix, AZ.

________. 1993. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. Technical Reference 1737-9 1993. Denver, 

CO: BLM Service Center.

________. 1994. Agua Fria Wild and Scenic River Study Area. Phoenix, AZ: BLM Phoenix District.

________. 1994. Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. Arizona 

State Office, Phoenix, AZ. December.

________. 1994. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas.

Technical Reference 1737-11 1994. Denver, CO: BLM Service Center.

________. 1995. Final Rule for Grazing Administration. Federal Register, Vol 60, No 35.

________. 1997. Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. Arizona 

State Office, Phoenix, AZ. April.

________. 1997. Statewide Plan Amendment of Land Use Plans in Arizona for Implementation of Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. Arizona State Office, Phoenix, AZ.

________. 1997. Bureau of Land Management Strategic Plan. Washington, DC. September 30.

________. 1998. Coordinated Resource Management Plan for the Horseshoe Ranch Grazing Allotment. Phoenix 

Field Office, Phoenix, AZ.

________. 1999. Supplemental Guidance for Desert Tortoise Compensation. (Instruction Memorandum No. AZ99-008). Arizona State Office, Phoenix, AZ.

________. 2000. Land Use Plan Evaluation. Phoenix, AZ: BLM Phoenix District.

________. 2000. Planning Guidance for National Monuments and National Conservation Areas. Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2001-022. Washington, DC. October 31.

________. 2002. Agua Fria National Monument Current Management Guidance. May.

________. 2003. Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management: 

Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Dynamac Corporation, Idaho Falls, ID. September.

________. 2003. BLM Implementation of the Settlement of Utah v. Norton Regarding Wilderness Study. Instruction 

Memorandum 2003-274. Washington, DC.
References

896

Jones & Stokes. 2003. Scoping Report for the AFNM/Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Areas. Phoenix, AZ.

________. 2004. Policy for Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas. Instruction 

Memorandum 2004-089. Washington, DC.

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona and New Mexico. 1999. Guidance 

Criteria for Determinations of Effects of Grazing Permit Issuance and Renewal on Threatened and Endangered 

Species.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Interagency 

Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. April.

Cabe, L., and R. Coupal. 2001. Final Report: Employment and Income in the Western U.S. Attributable to BLM 

Recreation. Available: http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy01/im2001-131.html.

CH2M HILL, in association with Logan, Simpson & Dye and EcoPlan Associates. 1997. Salt-Gila River Baseline 

Ecological Characterization. Prepared for City of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.

Cordes, Henry E. 2002 Interview with Henry Edward Cordes, September 24, 2002. Oral history on file 

at the BLM Phoenix District and the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott. 

Crytogammic. (2006). Retrieved October 4, 2006, from Wikepdia, The Free Encyclopedia Web site: 

http//en.wikibedia.org/wiki/crytogammic.

Duke, Philip, Donna Cave, and Robert Kimmick 2003 The Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources. USDA Forest 

Service, San Juan National Forest.

Fleming, John B. 2004. Hydrologic Characteristics of the Agua Fria National Monument, Arizona, Determined 

from the Phase 1 Reconnaissance Study. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004 (draft). 

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management. Tucson: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Hanes, Richard (editor) 2001 Fire Effects Guide: Cultural Resources. National Wildfire Coordinating Group.

Heuett, Mary Lou, and Paul V. Long, Jr.1996 A Cultural Resource Inventory of Fifteen Selected Linear Transects 

and a 300-Acre Quadrant on Perry Mesa in Southeastern Yavapai County, Arizona. Cultural and Environmental 

Systems Technical Series No. 51, Tucson.

James Kent Associates. 2003. A Social-Economic Community Assessment Related to Bureau of Land Management 

Activities in the Phoenix Field Office. Ashland, OR. January 15.

Maricopa Association of Governments. 2000. Desert Spaces: Environmentally Sensitive Development Areas 

(ESDA) Policies and Design Guidelines. Phoenix, AZ. June.

________. 2002. Long Range Transportation Plan 2002 Update. Phoenix, AZ. May.

Maricopa County. 1991. Maricopa County: Mobile Planning Area Land Use Plan. Phoenix, AZ. Adopted 

August 12.

________. 2002. Long Range Transportation Plan 2002 Update. Maricopa Association of Governments. Maricopa 

County, Arizona.
References

897

__________. 2002. Maricopa County 2020, Eye to the Future: The Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan.

Phoenix, AZ. Adopted October 20,1997; revised August 7, 2002.

__________. In prep. MAG Northwest Area Transportation Study.

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, 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. 146 pp.

North, Chris D. 2002 Farmers of Central Arizona’s Mesa-Canyon Complex: Archaeology Within and Adjacent to 

the Agua Fria National Monument. Cultural Resources Report No. 02-339. SWCA Environmental Consultants, 

Phoenix.

Peoria, City of. 2002. Peoria General Plan. Prepared by BRW, Inc. Phoenix, AZ. December. 

Phoenix, City of. 2001. General Plan of Phoenix. Adopted November 7.

Prescott Valley, Town of. 2002. Prescott Valley General Plan 2020. Adopted January 17.

Riper, C. & Ockenfels, R. (1998). The influence of transportation corridors on the movement of Pronghorn 

Antelope over a fragmented landscape in Northern Arizona. 

Silberman, J. 2003. The Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation: Economic Data on OffHighway Vehicle Recreation for the State of Arizona and Each Arizona County. Prepared for Arizona State 

University West School of Management, Phoenix, AZ.

Stone, Connie L. 1986 Deceptive Desolation: Prehistory of the Sonoran Desert in West Central Arizona. Cultural 

Resource Series No. 1. Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix.

Sonoran Institute. 2003. Population, Employment, Earnings and Personal Income Trends: Yavapai County, AZ.

Bozeman, MT. October 31.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Arizona Agricultural Statistics Service 

Annual Bulletins, 1999–2002. Available: www.nass.usda.gov/az.

U.S. Department of Interior. 2002. Interim Management Policy for Bureau of Land Management National 

Monuments and National Conservation Areas (Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-008). October 4.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Roads and trails report. 

U.S. Forest Service, Prescott National Forest. 2001. Proposed Action: Forest Plan Amendment. Prescott, AZ.

November.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management 1997. Grazing Management for Riparian-Wetland Areas. Riparian 

Area Management, TR-1737-14. Steve Leonard, Gene Kinch, Van Elsbernd, Dr. Mike Borman, and Dr. 

Sherman Swanson; 1997.

Wickenburg, Town of. 1988. Wickenburg General Plan.

Yavapai County. 2003. Yavapai County General Plan. Adopted April 7.
References

898
Glossary

899

Glossary 

ABIOTIC - The nonliving, material (as 

opposed to conceptual) components of the 

environment, such as air, rocks, soil, water, coal, 

peat, and plant litter. See BIOTIC.

ACCELERATED SOIL EROSION - Soil 

loss above natural levels resulting directly from 

human activities. Because of the slow rate of soil 

formation, accelerated erosion can permanently 

reduce plant productivity.

ACQUIRED PUBLIC LANDS - Lands in 

Federal ownership that the Government obtained 

as a gift or by purchase, exchange, or 

condemnation. See PUBLIC LANDS.

ACRE-FOOT - A volume that covers an area 

of 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot (43,560 ft3). 

ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREAS - Five 

areas in Arizona (i.e. Prescott, Phoenix, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, and Tucson) where the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources regulates 

groundwater use. Groundwater regulations stem 

from the 1980 Arizona Groundwater 

Management Code, which provides the 

management framework to ensure dependable 

water supplies for Arizona well into the future. 

Ensuring dependable supplies, the code places 

conservation requirements on municipal and 

agricultural water use and promotes the use of 

renewable supplies, such as Colorado River 

water delivered by the Central Arizona Project.

ACTIVE MINING CLAIM - A parcel of 

Federal land, valuable for a mineral deposit or 

deposits. A claim is a parcel for which one has 

asserted a right of possession. The right is 

restricted to extracting and developing a mineral 

deposit. The rights granted by a mining claim 

are valid against a challenge by the United 

States and other claimants only after the 

discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. There 

are two types of mining claims: lode and placer. 

Since October 5, 1992, only claimants who have 

a legal interest in ten or fewer mining claims 

nationwide and who also meet other 

requirements, may perform assessment work and 

file evidence of assessment. All other claimants 

must pay an annual fee of $125 per claim to 

BLM or file for a waiver from payment by 

August 31. Failure to file by August 31 requires

BLM to declare the claim or site null and void 

by operation of law. 

ACTIVITY PLAN - A detailed and specific 

plan for managing a single resource program or 

plan element undertaken, as needed, to 

implement the more general resource 

management plan (RMP) decisions. BLM 

prepares activity plans for specific areas to reach 

specific resource management objectives within 

stated timeframes.

ADMINISTRATIVE USE OF MINERAL 

MATERIALS - BLM‘s use of mineral 

materials from public land for land management 

projects.

ADVANCED ECOLOGICAL STATUS -

A condition that is considered to be achieved 

when the vegetation community at a defined 

ecological site has a high correlation to the 

potential natural community for that site (i.e. 

ecological site rating > 50). These conditions are 

determined from ecological site inventories 

using the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service ecological site guides to compare the 

existing vegetation communities on each 

ecological site to the potential plant community 

for that site. Achieving an advanced ecological 

status is assumed to be an expression of the 

physical and biological condition or degree of 

function needed to sustain a healthy rangeland 

ecosystem.

AGGREGATE- Any combination of sand, 

gravel, and crushed stone in its natural or 

processed state.

AIR QUALITY RATING - See CLASS I 

AIR QUALITY RATING and CLASS II AIR 

QUALITY RATING.
Glossary

900

AIRSHED - An area that shares the same air 

because of topography, meteorology, and 

climate; the atmospheric zone potentially 

influenced by air pollutants from various 

sources.

ALLOTMENT - An area of one or more 

pastures where one or more operators graze their 

livestock. An allotment generally consists of 

Federal rangelands, but may include 

intermingled parcels of private, State, or Federal 

lands. BLM stipulates the number of livestock 

and season of use for each allotment. 

ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

(AMP) - A livestock grazing management plan 

for 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--watershed, vegetation, and wildlife. 

An AMP establishes the seasons of use, number 

of livestock to be permitted on rangelands, and 

the range improvements needed.

ALLUVIAL FAN - A low, outspread, 

relatively flat to gently sloping mass of 

sediment, shaped like an open fan and deposited 

by a stream where it flows from a narrow 

mountain valley onto a plain or broad valley.

ALLUVIUM - Any sediment deposited by 

flowing water as in a riverbed, floodplain, or 

delta.

ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT 

SITUATION (AMS) - Step 4 in BLM‘s 

resource management planning process. An 

MSA describes a planning area‘s current public 

land management and suggests opportunities to 

better manage this land.

ANIMAL UNIT- One mature (1,000 pound) 

cow or the equivalent based upon an average 

daily forage consumption of 26 pounds of dry 

matter per day.

ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM) - The 

amount of forage needed to sustain one cow, 

five sheep, or five goats for a month. 

ANNUAL PLANT - A plant that completes 

its life cycle and dies in 1 year or less. Also see 

PERENNIAL PLANT.

APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT 

LEVEL (AML) - In wild horse and burro 

management, a single number that is the high 

point of an established population range to 

maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, 

based on available forage, water, and other 

resource needs or conflicts.

AQUATIC HABITATS - Habitats confined 

to streams, rivers, springs, lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs, and other water bodies.

AQUIFER - A water-bearing bed or layer of 

permeable rock, sand, or gravel capable of 

yielding large amounts of water.

AQUIFER RECHARGE - Adding water to 

an aquifer, a process that occurs naturally from 

the infiltration of rainfall and from water 

flowing over earth materials that allow it to 

infiltrate below the land surface.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURE - A 

nonportable 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.
Glossary

901

ARIZONA STANDARDS FOR 

RANGELAND HEALTH AND 

GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING 

ADMINISTRATION - Standards and 

guidelines developed collaboratively by BLM 

and the Arizona Resource Advisory Council 

(RAC) to address the minimum requirements of 

the Department of the Interior's final rule for 

Grazing Administration, effective Aug. 21, 

1995.

ASPECT- See VISUAL ASPECT.

AZSITE DATABASE - A computer 

database containing cultural site information 

managed by the State Historic Preservation 

Office and maintained by Northern Arizona 

University and Arizona State University. 

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)

BACK COUNTRY ZONE - Areas with 

undeveloped, primitive, and self-directed visitor 

experience without provisions for motorized or 

mechanized access, except for designated routes. 

Also see FRONT COUNTRY ZONE and 

PASSAGE ZONE.

BAJADA - A broad continuous slope 

extending along and from the base of a mountain 

range and formed by coalescing alluvial fans.

BAR - A ridge-like accumulation of sand, 

gravel, or other alluvial material formed in the 

channel, along the banks, or at the mouth of a 

stream where a decrease in velocity induces 

deposition. Also see WATER BAR.

BASAL DIAMETER - Diameter of a tree 

stem as measured 0.5 feet above the ground.

BASE FLOW (DISCHARGE) - The 

portion of stream discharge derived from such 

natural storage sources as groundwater, large 

lakes, and swamps but not derived from direct 

runoff or flow from stream regulation, water 

diversion, or other human activities.

BASE HERD - The constant livestock herd 

size that is continually licensed but may not be 

the same as the grazing (carrying) capacity. Also 

see GRAZING CAPACITY.

BASE LEVEL - The lowest level to which a 

land surface can be reduced by the action of 

running water.

BASE METAL- A metal inferior in value to

gold and silver; a term generally applied to the 

commercial metals such as copper and lead.

BASIN (INTERMONTANE BASIN) - A 

broad structural lowland between mountain 

ranges, commonly elongated and many miles 

across.

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTInformation prepared by or under the direction 

of a Federal agency to determine whether a 

proposed action is likely to (1) harm threatened 

or endangered species or designated critical 

habitat, (2) jeopardize the existence of species 

that are proposed for listing, or (3) adversely 

modify proposed critical habitat. Biological 

assessments must be prepared for major 

construction activities. The outcome of a 

biological assessment determines whether 

formal Section 7 consultation or a conference is 

needed. Also see BIOLOGICAL 

EVALUATION.

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 

(BIODIVERSITY) - The full range of 

variability within and among living organisms 

and the ecological complexes in which they 

occur. Biological diversity encompasses 

ecosystem or community diversity, species 

diversity, and genetic diversity.
Glossary

902

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION - The 

gathering and evaluation of information on 

proposed endangered and threatened species and 

critical and proposed critical habitat for actions 

that do not require a biological assessment. Also 

see BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION - A document 

that includes the following- (1) the opinion of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service as to whether 

a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the 

existence of a species listed as threatened or 

endangered or destroy or adversely modify 

designated critical habitat, (2) a summary of the 

information on which the opinion is based, and 

(3) a detailed discussion of the effects of the 

action on listed species or designated critical 

habitat.

BIOLOGICAL VEGETATION 

TREATMENT - Methods of vegetation 

treatment that employ living organisms to 

selectively suppress, inhibit, or control 

herbaceous and woody vegetation. Examples of 

such methods include insects; pathogens; and 

grazing by cattle, sheep, or goats.

BIOMASS - The total amount of living matter 

in a given unit of the environment.

BIOTIC - Pertaining to life or living; the living 

components of the environment. Also see 

ABIOTIC.

BIRDS OF CONSERVATION 

CONCERN - As listed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, birds (other than threatened or 

endangered species) that are in greatest need of 

conservation action and without such action 

might become listed as threatened or 

endangered.

BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES - See

SENSITIVE SPECIES.

BOSQUE - A woodland dominated by trees 

more than 15 feet tall.

BRAIDING - A pattern of an interlacing or 

tangled network of several branching and 

reuniting stream channels separated by branch 

islands or channel bars.

BROWSE - The part of leaf and twig growth 

of shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for 

animal consumption.

BURNBLOCK - In prescribed burning, an 

area having uniform enough conditions of stand 

and fuel to be treated uniformly under a given 

burning prescription. The size of burnblocks 

ranges from the smallest that allows an 

economically acceptable cost per acre, up to the 

largest that can conveniently be treated in one 

burning period.

BURN OUT - Setting fire inside a control line 

to widen it or consume fuel between the edge of 

the fire and the control line.

CANDIDATE SPECIES - Species not 

protected under the Endangered Species Act, but 

being considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for inclusion on the list of federally 

threatened and endangered species.

CANOPY - The cover or leaves of branches 

formed by the tops or crowns of plants as 

viewed from above the cover measured by the 

vertical projection downward of the extent of the 

cover and expressed as a percentage of the 

ground so covered.

CARBON-14 DATING - A method of 

estimating the age of an artifact containing 

carbon by measuring the radioactivity of its 

carbon-14 content to determine how long ago 

the specimen was separated from equilibrium 

with the atmosphere/plant/animal cycle. 

Continuously produced in the atmosphere by 

cosmic ray bombardment, carbon-14 decays 

with a half-life typically described as 5,568 

years. An object is dated by comparing its 

carbon-14 activity per unit mass with that in a 

contemporary sample.
Glossary

903

CARRYING CAPACITY 

(RECREATION) - The amount of recreation 

use a given resource can sustain before the 

resource‘s quality begins to irreversibly 

deteriorate.

CARRYING CAPACITY (WILDLIFE) -

The most animals a specific habitat or area can 

support without causing deterioration or 

degradation of that habitat. Also see GRAZING 

CAPACITY.

CASUAL USE (MINING) - Mining that 

only negligibly disturbs Federal lands and 

resources and does not include the use of 

mechanized earth moving equipment or 

explosives or motorized equipment in areas 

closed to off-highway vehicles. Casual use 

generally includes panning, non-motorized 

sluicing, and collecting mineral specimens using 

hand tools.

CASUAL USE (RECREATION) -

Noncommercial or nonorganized group or 

individual activities on public land. Casual use 

does the following:

complies with land use decisions and 

designations, i.e. Special Area

Designations, 

does not award cash prizes, 

is not publicly advertised, 

poses minimal risk for damage to public 

land or related water resources, and 

generally requires no monitoring. 

If the use goes beyond those conditions, the 

activity should be treated as any other organized 

recreational group or competitive activity or 

event for which BLM would require the event 

organizer to obtain a special recreation permit 

(SRP).

CASUAL USE OF MINERAL 

MATERIALS - Extracting mineral materials 

for limited personal (noncommercial) uses.

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION - A 

category of Federal actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a significant 

effect on the human environment and for which 

an environmental impact statement or an 

environment assessment is required.

CATTLE GUARD - A device placed in a 

road, usually a grate or series of metal bars 

placed perpendicular to the flow of traffic, 

which allows free passage of vehicles but which 

livestock will not cross.

CATTLE YEAR-LONG (CYL) - The 

amount of forage needed to sustain one cow for 

a 1-year period. One CYL equals 12 animal unit 

months (AUMs). Also see ANIMAL UNIT 

MONTH.

CHANNEL - A natural or artificial 

watercourse with a definite bed and banks to 

confine and conduct continuously or periodically 

flowing water.

CHANNELIZATION - The process of 

rebuilding the natural course of a stream to make 

it flow into a restricted path.

CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY- The 

structure and form of a stream channel.

CHEMICAL VEGETATION 

TREATMENTS - The applying of chemicals 

to control unwanted vegetation. 

CLASS I AIR QUALITY RATING -

Under the Clean Air Act, the rating given areas 

of the country selected to receive the most 

stringent degree of air quality protection. Also 

see CLASS II AIR QUALITY RATING.

CLASS II AIR QUALITY RATING -

Under the Clean Air Act, the rating given areas 

of the country selected for somewhat less 

stringent protection from air pollution damage 

than Class I areas, except in specified cases. 

Also see CLASS I AIR QUALITY RATING.
Glossary

904

CLIMAX - A plant community‘s final and 

highest ecological development, which emerges 

after a series of successive vegetational stages. 

The climax community perpetuates itself 

indefinitely unless disturbed by outside forces. 

Also see DISCLIMAX.

COLLUVIUM - Any loose, heterogeneous 

and incoherent mass of soil and/or rock 

fragments moved downslope by gravity-driven 

processes (like creep or sheet wash) and 

deposited at the base of the slope or hillside.

COLONIZATION - Occupation of an area by 

a group of organisms that previously did not 

occupy the area.

COMMUNITY - A collective term used to 

describe an assemblage of organisms living 

together; an association of living organisms 

having mutual relationships among themselves 

and with their environment and thus functioning 

at least to some degree as an ecological unit.

COMPETITIVE RACES - For purposes of 

this plan, all competitive events that have an 

element of speed as a component, including, 

motorcycle enduros, OHV desert racing, and 

equestrian endurance rides. 

CONSERVATION EASEMENT - An 

easement to assure the permanent preservation 

of land in its natural state or in whatever degree 

of naturalness the land has when the easement is 

granted. Also see EASEMENT.

COMMUNITY RESOURCE UNIT 

(CRU) - In social ecology, a subdivision of a 

human resource unit that shows the "catchment 

area" of a community, or its zone of influence, 

beyond which people relate to another 

community. Geographic features or settlement 

patterns often determine these boundaries. 

People in CRUs experience great face-to-face 

knowledge, and the caretaking systems through 

informal networks are the strongest. Also see 

HUMAN RESOURCE UNIT (HRU).

CONSERVATION EASEMENT- An 

easement to assure the permanent preservation 

of land in its natural state or in whatever degree 

of naturalness the land has when the easement is 

granted. Also see EASEMENT.

COOL-SEASON PLANTS - Plants whose 

major growth occurs during the late fall, winter, 

and early spring. Also see WARM-SEASON 

PLANTS.

COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT 

AGREEMENT - A document that describes 

agreements made between BLM and the public 

on adjusting grazing use. This document also 

defines the specific adjustments and the 

schedule of adjustments (usually over a 5-year 

period). 

COOPERATIVE RECREATION 

MANAGEMENT AREA (CRMA) - An 

area for which BLM enters into a cooperative 

management agreement with a local government 

to manage recreation land.

CORRIDOR- See DESIGNATED 

CORRIDOR.

COVER - (1) Plants or plant parts, living or 

dead, on the surface of the ground; (2) plants or 

objects used by wild animals for nesting, rearing 

of young, escape from predators, or protection 

from harmful environmental conditions.

COW-CALF LIVESTOCK OPERATION 

- A livestock operation that maintains a base 

breeding herd of mother cows and bulls. The 

cows produce a calf crop each year, and the 

operation keeps some heifer calves from each 

calf crop for breeding replacements. Between 

the ages of 6 and 12 months, the operation sells 

the rest of the calf crop along with old and 

nonproductive cows and bulls.

CREEPING PLANT - A plant that spreads 

over the ground or other surface.
Glossary

905

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.

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS - Air 

pollutants for which acceptable levels of 

exposure can be determined and for which an 

ambient air quality standard has been set. 

Examples of such pollutants are ozone, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and 

PM10 and PM25. 

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS - See

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS. 

CRITICAL HABITAT, DESIGNATED -

Specific parts of an area (1) that are occupied by 

a federally listed threatened or endangered plant 

or animal at the time it is listed and (2) 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.

CROSSING LANE - A fenced corridor that 

allows livestock to cross a stream without 

spreading out into the water.

CULTURAL HERITAGE 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. Section 1 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act states that "the 

preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in 

the public interest so that its vital legacy of 

cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, 

economic and energy benefits will be 

maintained and enriched for future generations 

of Americans."

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 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 
Glossary

906

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 onthe-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 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 the location of a single cultural 

resource object to a cluster of cultural resource 

structures with associated objects and features.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS – (40 CFR 

1508.8)"...is the impact on the environment 

which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time."

CRYPTOGAMMIC SOILS

(Cryptobiotic soils) –Primarily consist of 

cyanobacteria, along with lichens, mosses, fungi, 

and bacteria. These soils or crusts are vital to 

the desert ecosystem. On the Colorado Plateau, 

that may make up 70-80 precent of the living 

ground cover in some areas. The crusts are 

living autotrophic organisms.

DATA RECOVERY - See CULTURAL 

RESOURCE DATA RECOVERY.

DECISION RECORD - A manager‘s 

decision on a categorical exclusion review or an 

environmental assessment. Comparable to the 

record of decision for an environmental impact 

statement, the decision record includes- (1) a

finding of no significant impact, (2) a decision to 

prepare an environmental impact statement, or 

(3) a decision not to proceed with a proposal. 

Also see RECORD OF DECISION.
Glossary

907

DEFERRED ROTATION GRAZING -

Moving grazing animals to various parts of a 

range in succeeding years or seasons to provide 

for seed production, plant vigor, and seedling 

growth.

DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT

CLASSIFICATIONS - Three categories of 

desert tortoise habitat based on population, 

viability, size, density, and manageability and 

derived from BLM inventories of desert tortoise 

habitat throughout the planning areas between 

1989 and 1999. The categories are as followsCategory I: Medium to high tortoise density. 

Habitat area essential for maintaining large, 

viable populations.

Category II: Low to moderate tortoise density. 

Habitat is manageable.

Category III: Isolated patches of good habitat 

exist but are difficult to manage. Most 

management conflicts are not resolvable.

DESIGNATED CORRIDOR - BLM‘s 

preferred route for placing rights-of-way for 

utilities (i.e. pipelines and powerlines) and 

transportation (i.e. highways and railroads).

DESIRED PLANT COMMUNITY - The 

plant community that has been determined 

through a land use or management plan to best 

meets the plan's objectives for a site. A real, 

documented plant community that embodies the 

resource attributes needed for the present or 

potential use of an area, the desired plant 

community is consistent with the site's capability 

to produce the required resource attributes 

through natural succession, management 

intervention, or a combination of both.

DETRITAL COVER - Cover that consists of 

dead organic matter.

DETRITUS - Disintegrated matter, such as 

rock fragments or organic debris accumulated in 

pond water, mud, or soil.

DIKE - An upright or steeply dipping sheet of 

igneous rock that has solidified in a crack or 

fissure in the earth‘s crust; a human-made 

structure used to control stream flow. 

DISCLIMAX - An enduring climax 

community altered by human or livestock 

disturbance, such as grassland that has replaced 

a deciduous forest. Also see CLIMAX.

DISCRETIONARY- Where the Field 

Manager has the option to authorize or not 

authorize a land use action, based on a variety of 

factors.

DISPERSED RECREATION- Recreation 

that does not require developed sites or facilities.

DISTURBANCE REGIME- The regular 

pattern of occurrence or characteristic behavior 

of disturbance that includes type, intensity, 

frequency, and spatial extent.

DIVISION FENCE - A fence that separates 

pastures or allotments.

DRAW - A natural drainage basin or gully.

EASEMENT- The right to use land in a 

certain way granted by a landowner to a second 

party. Also see CONSERVATION 

EASEMENT.

ECOLOGICAL CONDITION - See 

ECOLOGICAL SITE RATING.

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.

ECOLOGICAL NICHE- See NICHE.

ECOLOGICAL SITE (RANGE SITE) -

A distinctive kind of land that has specific 

physical characteristics and that differs from 
Glossary

908

other kinds of land in its ability to produce a 

distinctive kind and amount of vegetation.

ECOLOGICAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS 

(RANGE SITE GUIDE) - Descriptions of 

the following characteristics of an ecological 

site- soils, physical features, climatic features, 

associated hydrologic features, plant

communities possible on the site, plant 

community dynamics, annual production 

estimates and distribution of production 

throughout the year, associated animal 

communities, associated and similar sites, and 

interpretations for management. 

ECOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY -

The basic inventory of present and potential 

vegetation on BLM rangeland.

ECOLOGICAL SITE RATING 

(ECOLOGICAL CONDITION/ 

ECOLOGICAL STATUS) - The present 

state of vegetation of an ecological site in 

relation to the potential natural community for

the site. Independent of the site‘s use, the 

ecological site rating is an expression of the 

relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, 

and amounts of plants in a community resemble 

those of the potential natural community. The 

four ecological status classes correspond to 0-25 

percent, 25-50 percent, 51-75 percent, or 76-100 

percent similarity to the potential natural 

community and are called early-seral, mid-seral, 

late-seral, and potential natural community, 

respectively.

ECOSYSTEM - Organisms, together with 

their abiotic environment, forming an interacting 

system and inhabiting an identifiable space.

ECOTOURISM - Tourism that essentially 

focuses on natural rather than developed 

attractions with the goal of enhancing the 

visitor‘s understanding and appreciation of 

nature and natural features. Such tourism often 

attempts to be environmentally sound and to 

contribute economically to the local community.

ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENTQualification of a river for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System by 

determining that it is free flowing and, with its 

adjacent land area, has at least one river-related 

value considered to be outstandingly 

remarkable. Eligibility determinations are 

followed by suitability analyses that result in 

recommendations to Congress to designate river 

segments to the national system.

EMERGENT VEGETATION - Aquatic 

plant species that are rooted in wetlands but 

extend above the water‘s surface. Also see 

SUBMERGENT VEGETATION.

ENDANGERED SPECIES - Any animal or 

plant species in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range as 

designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

under the Endangered Species Act. Also see 

THREATENED SPECIES.

ENDURO - An off-road competition against 

the clock and usually over long distances.

ENERGY FLOW - The intake, conversion, 

and passage of energy through organisms or 

through an ecosystem.

ENTRENCHMENT - The process by which 

a stream erodes downward (incision) creating 

vertical, often eroding banks and abandoning its 

floodplain. Entrenched streams are often 

referred to as gullies.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

(EA - (40 CFR 1508.9)

"(a) Means a concise public document for which 

a Federal agency is responsible that serves to1. Briefly provide sufficient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement or a finding of no significant 

impact. 
Glossary

909

2. Aid an agency's compliance with the 

Act when no environmental impact 

statement is necessary. 

3. Facilitate preparation of a statement 

when one is necessary. 

(b) Shall include brief discussions of the need 

for the proposal, of alternatives as required by 

section 102 (2) (E), of the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action and Alternatives, 

and a listing of agencies and persons 

consulted." Also see ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT (EIS) - (40 CFR 1508.11) 

"...means a detailed written statement as 

required by section 102 (2) (C) of the Act" 

(referring to the National Environmental Policy 

Act.) Also see ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) -

Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations," 

directs Federal agencies to assess whether their 

actions have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on 

minority or low-income populations.

EPHEMERAL FORAGE - Part-time or 

seasonal forage; forage produced by annual 

forage species.

EPHEMERAL STREAM - A stream or 

portion of a stream that (1) flows only in direct 

response to precipitation, (2) receives little or no 

water from springs or no long continued supply 

from snow or other sources, and (3) has a 

channel that is always above the water table.

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.

EVAPORITES - Sedimentary rocks formed 

by the precipitation of salts in hot dry regions 

from shallow seas or lakes.

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.

EXCLOSURE - An area fenced to exclude 

animals.

EXOTIC - An organism or species that is not 

native to the region in which it is found.

EXTENSIVE RECREATION 

MANAGEMENT AREA (ERMA) - A 

blanket RMP allocation for recreation use made 

in a resource management plan for all BLM‘s 

land covered by the plan but not otherwise 

allocated in special recreation management areas 

or recreation management zones.

EXTIRPATED SPECIES - A locally 

extinct species; a species that is no longer found 

in a locality but exists elsewhere.

EXTIRPATION - See EXTIRPATED 

SPECIES.

FACILITY FOOTPRINT - The area on the 

ground defining or delineating the extent of the 

facility. For a building, it could be the outside 

edge of the foundation. For a parking lot, staging 

area, or trail head, it could be a barrier fence or 

artificial boundary that defines the limits of the 

particular use.

FAULT BLOCK MOUNTAINS 

(BLOCK MOUNTAINS) - Mountains 

formed by block faulting which divides the 

earth‘s crust into fault blocks of different 

elevations and orientations.
Glossary

910

FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT (FLPMA) - The act 

that- (1) set out, for the Bureau of Land 

Management, standards for managing the public 

lands including land use planning, sales, 

withdrawals, acquisitions, and exchanges; (2) 

authorized the setting up of local advisory 

councils representing major citizens groups 

interested in land use planning and management, 

(3) established criteria for reviewing proposed 

wilderness areas, and (4) provided guidelines for 

other aspects of public land management such as 

grazing.

FEE SIMPLE TITLE - Unrestricted 

ownership of real property (i.e. land and 

whatever is erected or growing on it).

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT 

IMPACT (FONSI) - A document that is 

prepared by a federal agency and that briefly 

explains why an action not otherwise excluded 

from the requirement to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) would not 

significantly affect the human environment and 

not require an EIS.

FINE PARTICULATE MATTER 

(PM2.5) - Particulate matter that is less than 2.5 

microns in diameter. Also see PARTICULATE 

MATTER and INHALABLE 

PARTICULATE MATTER.

FIRE INTENSITY - The rate of heat release 

for an entire fire at a specific time.

FIRE MANAGEMENT - The integration of 

fire protection, prescribed burning, and fire 

ecology knowledge into multiple use planning, 

decision making, and land management.

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN - A plan 

that defines a program to manage wildland and 

prescribed fires and documents the fire 

management program in the approved land use 

plan.

FIRE SUPPRESSION - All the work of 

extinguishing or confining a fire, beginning with 

its discovery.

FIRE SUPPRESSION RESOURCES -

People, equipment, services, and supplies 

available or potentially available for assignment 

to incidents. 

FIXED STOCKING RATE - A stocking 

rate that is fixed and cannot vary from season to 

season or year to year. Also see STOCKING 

RATE and VARIABLE STOCKING RATE.

FLOODPLAIN - Nearly level land on either

or both sides of a channel that is subject to 

overflow flooding. 

FORAGE - All browse and herbage that is 

available and acceptable to grazing animals or 

that may be harvested for feed. 

FORB - An herbaceous plant that is not a grass, 

sedge, or rush. 

FREE USE PERMIT - A permit that allows 

the removal of timber or other resources from 

the public lands free of charge.

FRONT COUNTRY ZONE - Focal areas 

for motorized and non-motorized visitation, 

concentrating use along major access routes. 

Also see BACK COUNTRY ZONE and 

PASSAGE ZONE.

FUEL BED (IN FIRE SUPPRESSION) 

- The fuel composition in natural settings.

FUEL LOAD (IN FIRE 

SUPPRESSION) - The ovendry weight of 

fuel per unit area usually expressed in tons/acre.

FUEL LOADING - The amount of fuel 

present expressed by weight of fuel per unit 

area.
Glossary

911

FUEL MOISTURE CONTENT (FUEL 

MOISTURE) (IN FIRE 

SUPPRESSION) - The water content of a 

fuel expressed as a percentage of the fuel‘s 

ovendry weight. For dead fuels, which have no 

living tissue, moisture content is determined 

almost entirely by relative humidity, 

precipitation, dry-bulb temperature, and solar 

radiation. The moisture content of live fuels is 

physiologically controlled within the living 

plant.

FUGITIVE DUST - Dust particles that are 

introduced into the air through certain actions 

such as soil cultivation or vehicles crossing open 

fields or driving on dirt roads or trails.

FUNCTIONING WATERS (WILDLIFE) 

- A well, catchment, spring, reservoir, or other 

feature (human made or natural) that provides a 

reliable source of potable water on a year-long 

basis. For such a source of water to be 

considered functional, the quality and quantity 

of water must be sufficient to sustain native 

wildlife populations in the local area. For 

example, a reservoir that fills up during 

monsoon rains but goes dry in a few weeks is 

not functional from a wildlife standpoint.

FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND

HEALTH - As Described in 43 CFR 4180, the 

conditions in which (1) rangelands are in proper 

functioning physical condition, (2) ecological 

process are supporting healthy biotic populations 

and communities, (3) water quality is meeting 

state standards and BLM objectives, and (4) 

special status species habitat is being restored or 

maintained.

GENERALIST - An organism that can 

survive under a wide variety of conditions and 

does not specialize to live under any particular 

set of circumstances.

GENETIC DIVERSITY - The variation in 

genes in a population pool that contributes to the 

ability of organisms to evolve and adapt to new 

conditions. 

GRAZING CAPACITY (CARRYING 

CAPACITY) - The highest livestock stocking 

rate possible without damaging vegetation or 

related resources. Grazing capacity may vary 

from year to year or in the same area because of 

fluctuating forage production.

GRAZING CYCLE - The amount of time 

required for livestock to rotate completely 

through all the pastures under an allotment 

management plan.

GRAZING PERMIT/LICENSE/LEASE -

Official written permission to graze a specific 

number, kind, and class of livestock for a 

specified period on a defined rangeland.

GRAZING PRIVILEGES - The use of 

public land for livestock grazing under permits 

or leases.

GRAZING REST - Any period during which 

no livestock grazing is allowed within an area.

GRAZING SEASON - An established 

period for which grazing permits are issued.

GRAZING SYSTEM - A systematic 

sequence of grazing use and nonuse of an 

allotment to meet multiple use goals by 

improving the quality and amount of vegetation.

GROUND COVER - See COVER.

GROUND LITTER - See LITTER.

GROUNDWATER - Subsurface water and 

underground streams that supply wells and 

springs. Use of groundwater in Arizona does not 

require a water right, but must only be 

―reasonable.‖ Groundwater is separated from 

surface water by the type of alluvium in which 

the water is found. Water in the younger, 

floodplain alluvium is considered surface water. 

Water in the older, basin-fill alluvium is 

considered groundwater.
Glossary

912

HABITAT - An area that provides an animal 

or plant with adequate food, water, shelter, and 

living space.

HABITAT FRAGMENTATION - Process 

by which habitats are increasingly subdivided 

into smaller units resulting in their increased 

insularity and losses of total habitat area.

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN - A 

site-specific wildlife habitat plan.

HALF-SHRUB - A perennial plant with a 

woody base whose annually produced stems die 

each year.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

(HAZMAT) - An all-encompassing term that 

includes hazardous substances; hazardous waste; 

hazardous chemical substances; toxic 

substances; pollutants and contaminants; and 

imminently hazardous chemical substances and 

mixtures that can pose an unreasonable risk to 

human health, safety, and property.

HEAP LEACHING - A low-cost technique 

for extracting metals from ore by percolating 

leaching solutions through heaps of ore placed 

on impervious pads. This method is generally 

used on low-grade ores.

HERBACEOUS - Of, relating to, or having

the characteristics of a vascular plant that does 

not develop woody tissue.

HERD AREA (HA) - A geographic area 

occupied by a wild horse or burro herd and its 

habitat in 1971.

HERD MANAGEMENT AREA (HMA) -

An area established for maintaining wild horse 

and burro herds.

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.

HOLDING AREA (HOLDING 

GROUND) - An area where livestock are 

often held during roundups.

HOME RANGE - The area in which an 

animal travels in the scope of natural activities.

HUMAN RESOURCE UNIT (HRU) - An 

area that is roughly equivalent in size to a county 

but seldom corresponds to county boundaries. 

HRU boundaries are derived from the cultural 

descriptors listed below and by self-reporting by 

residents living in these areas.

HRUs are characterized by frequent and 

customary interaction. 

HRUs reveal face-to-face human society 

where people could be expected to have 

personal knowledge of each other and 

where informal caretaking systems are 

the strongest. 

People's daily activities occur mainly 

within their HRU, including work, 

school, shopping, social activities, and 

recreation. 

Health, education, welfare, and other 

public services are highly organized at 

this level, with a town or community 

almost always as its focal point. 

An HRU is characterized by a sense of 

place, a sense of identity with the land 

and the people, a sense of a common 

understanding of how the resources of 

their HRU should be managed, and a 

common understanding of how things 
Glossary

913

are normally done at this territorial 

level. 

The regularity of interaction within an 

HRU reinforces a recognition and 

identification by the residents of natural 

and human-made features as "home." 

Because of this familiarity, boundaries 

between HRUs are clearly defined in the 

minds of those living within them. 

Also see COMMUNITY RESOURCE UNIT 

(CRU).

HYDRIC- Characterized by, relating to, or 

requiring an abundance of moisture. 

HYDROLOGIC CYCLE - The circuit of 

water movement from the atmosphere to the 

earth and its return to the atmosphere through 

various stages or processes, such as 

precipitation, interception, runoff, infiltration, 

percolation, storage, evaporation, and 

transpiration.

IGNEOUS ROCK - Rock, such as granite

and basalt, which has solidified from a molten or 

partially molten state.

INCIDENT - A human-caused or natural 

occurrence, such as wildland fire, that requires 

emergency action to prevent or reduce the loss 

of life or damage to property or natural 

resources.

INCIDENT COMMANDER - The person 

responsible for managing all operations in 

response to incidents (i.e. wildfires and other 

events requiring emergency action).

INDICATORS - Elements of the human 

environment affected, or potentially affected, by 

a change agent. An indicator can be a structural 

component, a functional process or an index. A 

key indicator integrates several system elements 

in such a way as to indicate the general health of 

that system.

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS - All minerals 

that humans extract from the earth's crust except 

for fuels, metallic ores, water and gemstones.

INFILTRATION - The downward entry of 

water into the soil or other material.

INFRASTRUCTURE- The set of systems 

and facilities that support a region or 

community‘s social and economic structures. 

Examples of such systems include energy, 

transportation, communication, education, 

medical service, and fire and police protection.

INHALABLE PARTICULATE 

MATTER (PM10) - Particulate matter in 

ambient air exceeding 10 microns in diameter. 

Also see PARTICULATE MATTER and

FINE PARTICULATE MATTER.

INHOLDING - Parcels of land owned or 

managed by someone other than BLM but 

surrounded in part or entirely by BLMadministered land.

INITIAL ATTACK - The actions taken by 

the first resources to arrive at a wildland fire to 

protect lives and property and prevent further 

extension of the fire.

INSTREAM WATER USE - Water use 

within a stream channel for such purposes as 

navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife 

preservation, water quality improvement, and 

hydroelectric power generation.

INSTREAM WATER RIGHT

(INSTREAM FLOW WATER RIGHT) -

A water right that reserves water for and protects 

such specific instream water uses as fish 

spawning and recreation. The instream water 

right allows water needed for these activities to 

be set aside and keeps later water users from 

appropriating water that may affect the instream 

activity. Also see INSTREAM WATER USE.
Glossary

914

INTERMITTENT STREAM - A stream 

that generally flows during wet seasons, but is

dry during dry seasons.

INVASIVE SPECIES (INVADERS) -

Plant species that were either absent or present 

only in small amounts in undisturbed portions of 

a specific range site‘s original vegetation and 

invade following disturbance or continued 

overuse.

KEY FORAGE SPECIES - Forage species 

whose use serves as an indicator of the degree of 

use of associated species.

KEYSTONE SPECIES - Species that create 

a special habitat on which other species depend 

and without which some wildlife would become 

severely depleted. Two examples of key stone 

species are beavers, which create ponds, and 

prairie dogs, which create burrows.

LAND USE AUTHORIZATION - BLM‘s 

authorizing through leases, permits, and 

easements of uses of the public land. Land use 

authorizations may allow occupancy, 

recreational residences and cabin sites, farming, 

manufacturing, outdoor recreation concessions, 

National Guard maneuvers, and many other 

uses.

LARAMIDE OROGENY- A series of 

mountain building events that affected much of 

western North America in Late Cretaceous and 

Early Tertiary periods. (The Cretaceous period 

ended 65 million years ago and was followed by 

the Tertiary period.)

LEACHATE - The liquid that has percolated 

through and dissolved minerals out of ore.

LEASABLE MINERALS - Minerals whose 

extraction from federally managed land requires 

a lease and the payment of royalties. Leasable 

minerals include coal, oil and gas, oil shale and 

tar sands, potash, phosphate, sodium, and 

geothermal steam.

LEAVE NO TRACE - A nationwide (and 

international) program to help visitors with their 

decisions when they travel and camp on 

America's public lands. The program strives to 

educate visitors about the nature of their 

recreational impacts as well as techniques to 

prevent and minimize such impacts.

LITTER - The uppermost layer of organic 

debris on the soil surface, essentially freshly 

fallen or slightly decomposed vegetal material.

LIVE FUEL MOISTURE- See FUEL 

MOISTURE.

LIVESTOCK TRESPASS- The 

unauthorized grazing of livestock.

LOAM - A soil texture class for soil material 

that contains 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 

percent silt, and less than 52 percent sand.

LOCATABLE MINERALS - Minerals that 

may be acquired under the Mining Law of 1872, 

as amended.

LOCATION - The act of taking or 

appropriating a parcel of mineral land, including 

the posting of notices, the recording thereof 

when required, and marking the boundaries so 

they can be readily traced.

MAINTENANCE (ROAD) - (From BLM 

9100 Manual) The work required keeping a 

facility in such a condition that it may be 

continuously utilized at its original or designed 

capacity and efficiency, and for its intended 

purposes. Road or trail maintenance actions 

include (a) signage, (b) minor repairs, e.g. 

correction of drainage, erosion, or vegetation 

interference problems. Upon performance of 

condition assessment, maintenance could also be 

construed as (c) allowing road or trail to remain 

in present state for regular and continuous use.

MAJOR LAND RESOURCE AREAS 

(MLRAs) - Broad geographic areas that have a 

particular pattern of soils, climate, water 
Glossary

915

resources, vegetation, and land use. Each MLRA 

in which range and forest land occur is further 

broken into range sites.

MAJOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY- Rights-ofway along which pass transmission lines 

(consisting of 115kV or higher) used to transmit 

large blocks of energy to load centers for 

distribution.

MANAGEMENT SITUATION 

ANALYSIS (MSA) - See ANALYSIS OF 

THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION (AMS).

MANUAL VEGETATION 

TREATMENTS - The use of hand-operated 

power tools and hand tools to cut, clear, or prune 

herbaceous and woody plants. In manual 

treatments, workers cut plants above ground 

level; pull, grub, or dig out plant root systems to 

prevent later 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. Manual vegetation 

treatments cause less ground disturbance and 

generally remove less vegetation than prescribed 

fire or mechanical treatments.

MECHANICAL VEGETATION 

TREATMENTS - The use of mechanical 

equipment to suppress, inhibit, or control 

herbaceous and woody vegetation. BLM uses 

wheeled tractors, crawler-type tractors, mowers, 

or specially designed vehicles with attached 

implements for such treatments.

MESOZOIC ERA - One of the great eras of 

geologic time (248 million to 65 million years 

ago), following the Paleozoic era, preceding the 

Cenozoic era, and including the Triassic, 

Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods.

MICROHABITAT- The smallest unit of a 

habitat, like a clump of grass or a space between 

rocks.

MINERAL ENTRY- The filing of a claim on 

public land to obtain the right to any minerals it 

may contain.

MINERALIZATION - Evidence of the 

presence of minerals.

MINERAL MATERIAL DISPOSAL- The 

disposal through sale or free use permit of sand, 

gravel, decorative rock, or other materials 

defined in 43 CFR 3600.

MINERAL MATERIALS - Materials such 

as common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, 

pumice, pumicite, and clay that are not 

obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but 

that can be acquired under the Mineral Materials 

Act of 1947, as amended.

MINERALS PLANNING AREA - The 

area with federally administered minerals, where 

(1) the surface rights are held by BLM, the State 

of Arizona, or private parties, and located within 

the administrative boundaries of BLM's Phoenix 

District but (2) are not being planned for in the 

Sonoran Desert National Monument RMP and 

Phoenix South RMP Revision.

MINING DISTRICT- An area, usually 

designated by name, with described or 

understood boundaries, where minerals are 

found and mined under rules prescribed by the 

miners, consistent with the Mining Law of 1872.

MINING PLAN OF OPERATIONS - A 

plan for mineral exploration and development 

that a mining operator must submit to BLM for 

approval for all mining, milling, and bulk 

sampling of more than 1,000 tons 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.
Glossary

916

MONITORING- The collection of 

information to determine the effects of resource 

management and detect changing resource 

trends, needs, and conditions.

MOSAIC- A pattern of vegetation in which 

two or more kinds of communities are 

interspersed in patches.

MOTORIZED TRAIL- A designated route 

that allows for the use of small-wheel-based 

motorized vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles 

and motorcycles.

MULTIPLE USE- A combination of

balanced and diverse resource uses that 

considers long-term needs for renewable and 

nonrenewable resources including recreation, 

wildlife, rangeland, timber, minerals, and 

watershed protection, along with scenic, 

scientific, and cultural values.

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 

STANDARDS (NAAQS) - The allowable 

concentrations of air pollutants in the ambient 

(public outdoor) air specified in 40 CFR 50. 

National ambient air quality standards are based 

on the air quality criteria and divided into 

primary standards (allowing an adequate margin 

of safety to protect the public health including 

the health of "sensitive" populations such as 

asthmatics, children, and the elderly) and 

secondary standards (allowing an adequate 

margin of safety to protect the public welfare). 

Welfare is defined as including effects on soils, 

water, crops, vegetation, human-made materials, 

animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, climate, 

and hazards to transportation, as well as effects 

on economic values and on personal comfort and 

well-being.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT (NEPA) - The Federal law, 

effective January 1, 1970, that established a 

national policy for the environment and requires 

federal agencies- (1) to become aware of the 

environmental ramifications of their proposed 

actions, (2) to fully disclose to the public 

proposed Federal actions and provide a 

mechanism for public input to Federal decisionmaking, and (3) to prepare environmental impact 

statements for every major action that would 

significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment.

NATIONAL HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966, AS 

AMENDED (NHPA) - A Federal statute that 

established a Federal program to further the 

efforts of 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 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 TRAILOne of the three categories of national trails 

defined in the National Trails System Act of 

1968 that can only be established by Secretarial 

order and are administered by federal agencies, 

although part or all of their land base may be 

owned and managed by others. National 

recreational trails are existing regional and local 

trails recognized by either the Secretary of 

Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior upon 

application. 
Glossary

917

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.

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 DIVERSITY- The diversity of 

species that have evolved in a given place 

without human influence.

NATIVE SPECIES- A species that is part of 

an area‘s original flora and fauna.

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS 

- Birds that travel to Central America, South 

America, the Caribbean, and Mexico during the 

fall to spend the winter and then return to the 

United States and Canada during the spring to 

breed. These birds include almost half of the 

bird species that breed in the United States and 

Canada.

NEST PARASITISM (BROOD 

PARASITISM) - The exploitation by one bird 

species of the parental behavior of another 

species. A nest parasite lays eggs in the nest of 

another bird species to be cared for by a host. 

The parasite benefits from saving time, energy, 

and survival prospects, whereas the host may 

suffer partial or complete loss of its own current 

reproduction.

NICHE- The role of an organism in the 

environment, its activities and relationships to 

the biotic and abiotic environment.

NITROGEN OXIDES (OXIDES OF 

NITROGEN, NOx) - A general term for 

compounds of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), and other oxides of nitrogen. 
Glossary

918

Nitrogen oxides are typically created during 

combustion and are major contributors to smog 

formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria 

air pollutant and may have many adverse health 

effects.

NONATTAINMENT AREA- An area in 

which the level of a criteria air pollutant is 

higher than the level allowed by the federal 

standards. A single area may have acceptable 

levels of one criteria air pollutant but 

unacceptable levels of one or more other criteria 

air pollutants. Therefore, an area can be both 

attainment and nonattainment at the same time.

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION 

(WATER) - Pollution sources that are diffuse 

and do not have a single point of origin or are 

not introduced into a receiving water body from 

a specific outlet. These pollutants are generally 

carried off the land by storm water runoff from 

such sources as farming, forestry, mining, urban 

land uses, construction, and land disposal.

NOXIOUS WEED - the Federal Noxious 

Weed Act, 1974 (PL 930629) defines a noxious 

weed as, "any living stage (including seeds and 

reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other plant 

of a kind which is of foreign origin, is new to or 

not widely prevalent in the U.S., and can directly 

or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, 

livestock, poultry or other interests of 

agriculture, including irrigation, navigation, fish 

and wildlife resources, or the public health."

NUTRIENT CYCLE- A general term for the 

movement of any particular life essential 

substance through the physical and biological 

environment. Essential nutrient cycles include 

those of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and water.

OBLIGATE- Essential, necessary, unable to 

exist in any other state, mode, or relationship.

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 

nonamphibious 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 (43 CFR 8340.0-5)

OFF-ROAD VEHICLE (ORV) - See OFFHIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV).

OFFSET - A method used in the 1990 Clean 

Air Act to give companies that own or operate 

large sources in nonattainment areas flexibility 

in meeting overall pollution reduction 

requirements when changing production 

processes. If the operator or owner of the source 

wants to increase the release of a criteria air 

pollutant, an offset (reduction of a somewhat 

greater amount of the same pollutant) must be 

obtained either at the same plant or by buying 

offsets from another company.

OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA

(ONA) - ACECs which contain unusual natural 

characteristics and are managed primarily for 

educational and recreational purposes.

OVERBURDEN- All the earth and other 

materials that overlie a natural mineral deposit.

OVERSTORY- The portion of the trees in a 

forest stand forming the upper crown cover. 

Also see UNDERSTORY.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCESThe remains of plants and animals preserved in 

soils and sedimentary rock. Paleontological 

resources are important for understanding past 

environments, environmental change, and the 

evolution of life.

PALEOZOIC ERA- An era of geologic time 

(600 million to 280 million years ago) between 

the Late Precambrian and the Mesozoic eras and 
Glossary

919

comprising the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, 

Devonian, Missippian, Pennsylvanian, and 

Permian periods.

PANICULATE AGAVE- Certain agave 

species such as Palmer‘s agave (Agave palmeri) 

and Parry‘s agave (Agave parryi), whose flowers 

are arranged on the stalk in a pyramidal, loosely 

branched cluster (panicle). The nectar and pollen 

of paniculate agaves are consumed by the lesser 

long-nosed bat, a federally listed endangered 

species.

PASSAGE ZONE- Lands along secondary 

travel routes where visitor or other uses would 

not be directed or encouraged, but could be 

accommodated. Also see BACK COUNTRY 

ZONE and FRONT COUNTRY ZONE.

PATENT- The instrument by which the 

Federal Government conveys title to the public 

lands. 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 

(PILT) - Payments made to counties by BLM 

to mitigate losses because public lands cannot be 

taxed. BLM calculates the amount of payments 

using a formula based on population and the 

amount of Federal land in a particular local 

jurisdiction. These payments are in addition to 

Federal revenues transferred to local 

governments under other programs, such as 

income generated from timber harvests, mineral 

receipts, and the use of federal land for livestock 

grazing.

PARTICULATE MATTER- Fine liquid or 

solid particles suspended in the air and 

consisting of dust, smoke, mist, fumes, and 

compounds containing sulfur, nitrogen, and 

metals. Also see FINE PARTICULATE 

MATTER and INHALABLE 

PARTICULATE MATTER.

PASTURE- A grazing area that is separated 

from other areas by fencing or natural barriers.

PEDESTALLING- The removal of soil from 

the base of a plant, exposing the roots.

Pedestalling is often a result of wind and 

streambank erosion.

PERFORMANCE- See LIVESTOCK

PERFORMANCE.

PERENNIAL PLANT- A plant that has a 

life cycle of 3 or more years. Also see 

ANNUAL PLANT.

PERENNIAL STREAM- A stream that 

flows continuously during all seasons of the 

year.

PERMEABILITY, SOIL- The ease with 

which gases, liquids, or plant roots penetrate or 

pass through a bulk mass of soil or a layer of 

soil.

PERMITTEE- A person or company 

permitted to graze livestock on public land.

PERMIT TYPES AND DEFINITIONSCommercial Use- The activity, service, or use is 

commercial ifAny person, group, or organization 

makes or attempts to make a profit, 

receive money, amortize equipment, or 

obtain goods or services, as 

compensation from participants in 

recreational activities occurring on 

public lands led, sponsored, or 

organized by that person, group, or 

organization; 

Anyone collects a fee or receives other 

compensation that is not strictly a 

sharing of actual expenses, or exceeds 

actual expenses, incurred for the 

purposes of the activity, service, or use; 

There is paid public advertising to seek 

participants; or 
Glossary

920

Participants pay for a duty of care or an 

expectation of safety. 

Competitive Use- Any organized, sanctioned, or 

structured use, event, or activity on public land 

in which two or more contestants compete and 

either or both of the following elements applyParticipants register, enter, or complete 

an application for the event; 

A predetermined course or area is 

designated; 

Or, one or more individuals contesting an 

established record such as for speed or 

endurance.

Organized Group Activity and Event Use- A 

structured, ordered, consolidated, or scheduled 

event on, or occupation of, public lands for the 

purpose of recreational use that is not 

commercial or competitive.

Vending- The sale of goods or services, not from 

a permanent structure, associated with recreation 

on the public lands or related waters, such as 

food, beverages, clothing, firewood, souvenirs, 

filming or photographs (video or still), or 

equipment repairs.

PERSONAL INCOME- The sum of wage 

and salary payments, other labor income, 

proprietors‘ income, rental income of persons, 

personal dividend and interest income, and 

transfer payments to persons, less personal 

contributions for social insurance.

PETROGLYPH - Pictures, symbols, or other 

art work pecked, carved, or incised on natural 

rock surfaces.

PILT- See PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF 

TAXES.

PIPING- See SOIL PIPING.

PITHOUSE- A type of house built partly 

underground by prehistoric people. 

PLACER CLAIM- A mining claim located on 

surficial or bedded deposits, particularly for gold 

located in stream gravels.

PLAN OF OPERATIONS- See MINING 

PLAN OF OPERATIONS.

PLANT SUCCESSION- The process of 

vegetational development by which an area 

becomes successively occupied by different 

plant communities of higher ecological order.

PLANT VIGOR- The relative wellbeing and 

health of a plant as reflected by its ability to 

manufacture enough food for growth and 

maintenance.

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.

PM2.5 PARTICULATES- Tiny particles 

with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or 

less. These particles penetrate most deeply into 

the lungs.

PM10 PARTICULATES- A criteria air 

pollutant consisting of small particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. 

Their size allows them to enter the air sacs deep 

within the lungs where they may be deposited in 

have adverse health effects. These particles 

include dust, soot, and other tiny bits of solid 

materials in the air.

POKER RUN- A noncompetitive offhighway vehicle ride where riders have a choice 

of two or more clearly marked loop courses and 

pass several checkpoints to the finish line. After 

finishing the course, participants will draw poker 

hands for cash or other prizes.

POOL- A portion of a stream that has reduced 

current velocity and often water deeper than 
Glossary

921

surrounding areas and that is frequently usable 

by fish for resting and cover.

POPULATION- A group of interbreeding 

organisms of the same kind occupying a 

particular space; a group of individuals of a 

species living in a certain area.

PORPHYRY COPPER- A disseminated 

replacement deposit in which copper minerals 

occur as discrete grains and veinlets throughout 

a large volume of rock; a large-tonnage, lowgrade copper deposit.

POTENTIAL NATURAL COMMUNITY 

(PNC)- The stable biotic community that 

would become established on an ecological site 

if all successional stages were completed 

without human interference under present 

environmental conditions. The PNC is the 

vegetation community best adapted to fully use 

the resources of an ecological site.

PRESCRIBED FIRE (BURNING) - The 

planned applying of fire to rangeland vegetation 

and fuels under specified conditions of fuels, 

weather, and other variables to allow the fire to 

remain in a predetermined area to achieve such 

site-specific objectives as controlling certain 

plant species; enhancing growth, reproduction, 

or vigor of plant species; managing fuel loads; 

and managing vegetation community types.

PRIMARY ROAD- See ROAD AND 

TRAIL TYPES.

PRIME FARMLAND- As defined by the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, land 

that has the best combination of physical and 

chemical characteristics for producing food, 

feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural 

crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, 

pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable 

soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. Prime farmland includes land with 

the above characteristics, but is being used to 

produce livestock and timber. It does not include 

land already in or committed to urban 

development or water storage. Also see 

UNIQUE FARMLAND.

PRIMITIVE RECREATION- Recreation 

that provides opportunities for isolation from the 

evidence of humans, a vastness of scale, feeling 

a part of the natural environment, having a high 

degree of challenge and risk, and using outdoor 

skills. Primitive recreation is characterized by 

meeting nature on its own terms, without 

comfort or convenience of facilities.

PRIMITIVE ROAD- A Linear route 

managed for use by four-wheel drive or highclearance vehicles. These routes do not 

normally meet any BLM road design standards.

PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION 

(RIPARIAN-WETLAND AREAS) - The 

condition where- (1) enough vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris is present to 

dissipate the stream energy of high water flows, 

thereby reducing erosion and improving water 

quality; (2) sediments are filtered, bedload is 

captured, and floodplains develop; (3) flood 

water retention and ground water recharge are 

improved, root masses that stabilize streambanks 

against cutting action develop, and diverse 

ponding and channel characteristics are created 

to provide the habitat and the water depth, 

duration, and temperature needed for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; 

and (4) greater biodiversity is supported.

PROSPECTIVELY VALUABLE FOR 

OIL AND GAS- Known or believed to 

contain oil and gas deposits that have, or at some 

time in the future, proven economic value.

PUBLIC DOMAIN LANDS- Lands that are 

part of the original public domain and have 

never left federal ownership and lands in federal 

ownership that were acquired in exchange for 

public domain lands or for timber on public 

domain lands.

PUBLIC LAND ORDER - An order 

effecting, modifying, or canceling a withdrawal 
Glossary

922

or reservation. Such an order is issued by the 

Secretary of the Interior pursuant to powers of 

the President delegated to the Secretary by 

Executive Order No.9146 of April 24, 1943.

PUBLIC LANDS - As defined by Public 

Law 94-579 (Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976), lands and interest in 

land owned by the United States and 

administered by the Secretary of the Interior 

through BLM, regardless of how the United 

States acquired possession. In common usage, 

public lands may refer to all federal land no 

matter what agency manages it. Also see 

ACQUIRED PUBLIC LANDS.

PUBLIC USE LEVELS- Three sets of 

proposed management actions for the 

interpretive use of archaeological sites in the 

Agua Fria National Monument, varying in the 

intensity of development and number of 

facilities. Example actions for each of these 

levels can be found in the Cultural Resources 

discussion of the Management Common to the 

AFNM section of Chapter 2.

PUEBLO- A Spanish word meaning "town" or 

"village" and used to describe an Indian village 

of apartment-type building with one or more 

stories. Pueblos are built of adobe or stone and 

have flat roofs.

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.

RANGE IMPROVEMENT- Any activity or 

program on or relating to the public lands 

designed to improve forage production, change 

vegetation composition, control use patterns, 

provide water, stabilize soil and water 

conditions, or provide habitat for livestock and 

wildlife. Range improvements may be structural 

or nonstructural. A structural improvement 

requires placement or construction to facilitate 

the management or control the distribution and 

movement of animals. Such improvements may 

include fences, wells, troughs, reservoirs, 

pipelines, and cattleguards. Nonstructural 

improvements consist of practices or treatments 

that improve resource conditions. Such 

improvements include seedings; chemical, 

mechanical, and biological plant control; 

prescribed burning; water spreaders; pitting; 

chiseling; and contour furrowing.

RANGELAND - A kind of land on which the 

native vegetation, climax, or natural potential 

consists predominately of grasses, grasslike 

plants, forbs, or shrubs. Rangeland includes 

lands revegetated naturally or artificially to 

provide a plant cover that is managed like native 

vegetation. Rangelands may consist of natural 

grasslands, savannas, shrublands, moist deserts, 

tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes, 

and wet meadows.

RANGELAND ECOLOGICAL SITE- A 

distinctive kind of land that has specific physical 

characteristics and that differs from other kinds 

of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind 

and amount of vegetation.

RANGE SITE- See ECOLOGICAL SITE.

RANGE SITE GUIDE- See 

ECOLOGICAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS.

RAPTORS- Birds of prey.

REACH- A relatively homogeneous section of 

a stream having a repetitious sequence of 

physical characteristics and habitat types.

RECHARGE- See AQUIFER RECHARGE.

RECLAIMING OR RECLAIMED - See 

ROAD AND TRAIL TYPES.

RECORD OF DECISION - A document 

signed by a responsible official recording a 

decision that was preceded by the preparing of 

an environmental impact statement. Also see 

DECISION RECORD.
Glossary

923

RECREATION AND PUBLIC 

PURPOSES ACT of 1926 (44 Stat. 

741, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 869 et 

seq.) - An act of Congress that allows lease or 

acquisition of public land to be used for 

recreation or public purposes by local 

government entities (county or city 

governments) and nonprofit organizations.

RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

ZONES (RMZs) - Areas within special 

recreation management areas (SRMAs) with a 

particular recreation management focus or 

resource challenges. See SPECIAL 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS.

RECREATION OPPORTUNITY 

SPECTRUM (ROS) - A planning 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; semiprimitive motorized; roaded natural; rural; and 

urban. The resulting ROS analysis defines 

specific geographic areas on the ground, each of 

which encompasses one of the six classes.

RECREATION SETTINGS- Settings 

described in the recreation opportunity spectrum 

(ROS) inventory method. Descriptions of the 

settings followPrimitive: 

Remoteness: An area designated by a line 

generally 3 miles from all open roads, railroads, 

and motorized trails

Evidence of Humans: Setting is essentially an 

unmodified natural environment. Evidence of 

humans would be unnoticed by an observer 

wandering through the area.

Evidence of trails is acceptable but should not 

exceed standard to carry expected use.

Structures are extremely rare.

Social: Usually less than six parties per day 

encountered on trails and less than three parties 

visible at campsites.

Managerial: Onsite regimentation is low with 

controls primarily offsite. 

Semi-primitive Non-motorized: 

Remoteness: An area designated by a line 

generally 1/2 mile from any road, railroad, or 

trail open to public motorized use. (The 

guideline for applying the 1/2 mile criterion is to 

use 1/2 mile except where topographic or 

physical features closer than 1/2 miles 

adequately screen out the sights and sounds of 

humans and make access more difficult and 

slower. For example, if a ridge is 1/4 mile from 

the road, use the ridge instead of the 1/2 mile.)

Any roads, railroads, or trails within the semiprimitive non-motorized areas will have the 

following characteristics:

Closed to public motorized use, and 

Are reclaimed, or in the process of 

reclaiming (when reclaiming will 

harmonize with the natural appearing 

environment). Some examples are old 

logging roads, old railroad beds, old 

access routes to abandoned campsites, 

temporary roads, and gated roads that 

are used for occasional administrative 

access. 

Evidence of Humans: Natural setting may have 

subtle modifications that would be noticed but 

not draw the attention of an observer wandering 

through the area.

Little or no evidence of primitive roads and the 

motorized use of trails and primitive roads.

Structures are rare and isolated.
Glossary

924

Social: Usually 6-15 parties per day 

encountered on trails and six or fewer parties 

visible from campsite.

Managerial: Onsite regimentation and controls 

present but subtle.

Semi-Primitive Motorized:

Remoteness: An area designed by a line 

generally 1/2 mile from open better than 

primitive roads. (The guideline for applying the 

1/2 mile criterion is to consistently use 1/2 mile 

where topographic or physical features closer 

than 1/2 mile adequately screen out the sights 

and sounds of humans, e.g. a ridge 1/4 mile from 

the road).

Contains open primitive roads that are not 

maintained for the use of standard passengertype vehicles, normally OHVs and highclearance vehicles, e.g. an old pickup with high 

clearance. These open roads are generally tracks, 

ruts, or rocky-rough surface and upgraded and 

not drained. The roadbeds and cuts are mostly 

vegetated with grass or native material unless 

they are too rocky for vegetation. The roads 

harmonize with the natural environment. 

Examples include old logging roads from before 

specified road years, old revegetated railroad 

beds, old access roads to abandoned home-sites, 

temporary logging roads that are revegetated, 

and low standard administrative roads (normally 

used for access to wildlife openings).

Evidence of Humans: Natural setting may have 

moderately dominant alterations but would not 

draw the attention of motorized observers on 

trails and primitive roads within the area. Any 

closed improved roads must be managed to 

revegetate and harmonize with the natural 

environment.

Strong evidence of primitive roads and the 

motorized use of trails and primitive roads.

Structures are rare and isolated.

Social: Low to moderate contact frequency.

Managerial: Onsite regimentation and controls 

present but subtle.

Roaded Natural:

Remoteness: No criteria.

Evidence of Humans: Natural setting may have 

modifications, which range from being easily 

noticed to strongly dominant to observers within 

the area. But from sensitive travel routes and use 

areas these alterations would remain unnoticed 

or visually subordinate.

There is strong evidence of designed roads, 

highways, or both.

Structures are generally scattered, remaining 

visually subordinate or unnoticed to the sensitive 

travel route observer. Structures may include 

utility corridors or microwave installations.

Social: Frequency of contact is- Moderate to 

high on roads; Low to Moderate on trails and 

away from roads.

Managerial: Onsite regimentation and controls 

are noticeable but harmonize with the natural 

environment.

Rural:

Remoteness: No criteria.

Evidence of Humans: Natural setting is 

culturally modified to the point that it is 

dominant to the sensitive travel route observer. 

This setting may include pastoral, agricultural, 

intensively managed wildland resource 

landscapes, or utility corridors. Pedestrian or 

other slow-moving observers are constantly 

within view of culturally changed landscape.

There is strong evidence of designed roads, 

highways, or both.

Structures are readily apparent and may range 

from scattered to small dominant clusters, 
Glossary

925

including utility corridors, farm buildings, 

microwave installations, and recreation sites.

Social: Frequency of contact is: Moderate to 

High developed sites, on roads and trails, and 

water surfaces; Moderate away from developed 

sites.

Managerial: Regimentation and controls 

obvious and numerous, largely in harmony with 

the human-made environment.

Urban:

Remoteness: No criteria.

Evidence of Humans: Setting is strongly 

structure dominated. Natural or natural 

appearing elements may play an important role 

but be visually subordinate. Pedestrian and other 

slow moving observers are constantly within 

view of artificial enclosure of spaces.

There is strong evidence of designed roads 

and/or highways and streets.

Structures and structure complexes are 

dominant.

Social: Large numbers of users onsite and in 

nearby areas.

Managerial: Regimentation and controls 

obvious and numerous

RECREATION ZONE- A planned and 

delineated area with designated recreation 

opportunities, settings, and activities.

RECRUITMENT- The increase in population 

caused by natural reproduction or immigration.

REFUGIUM- An area that has remained 

unaffected by adverse environmental changes to 

the surrounding area, allowing a population to 

survive where others have perished.

REPLACEMENT DEPOSIT- A mineral 

deposit formed by a new mineral of partly or 

wholly differing chemical composition growing 

in the body of an old mineral or aggregate.

RESEARCH NATURAL AREA (RNA) -

An area of critical environmental concern that is 

a physical or biological unit in which current 

natural conditions are maintained insofar as 

possible. In RNAs activities such as grazing and 

vegetation manipulation are prohibited unless 

they replace natural processes and contribute to 

protecting and preserving an area. Moreover, 

such recreation as camping and gathering plants 

is discouraged.

RESEARCH DESIGN - A statement of 

proposed identification, documentation, 

evaluation, investigation, or other research that 

identifies the project's goals, methods and 

techniques, expected results, and the relationship 

of the expected results to other proposed 

activities or treatments. 

RESISTANCE TO CONTROL 

(WILDFIRE) - The relative difficulty of 

building and holding a fire control line as 

affected by fire behavior, fuel, topography, and 

soil.

RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS 

(RACs) - Advisory councils appointed by the 

Secretary of the Interior and consisting of 

representatives of major public land interest 

groups (e.g. commodity industries, recreation, 

environmental, and local area interests) in a state 

or smaller area. RACs advise BLM, focusing on 

a full array of multiple uses public land issues. 

RACs also help develop fundamentals for 

rangeland health and guidelines for livestock 

grazing.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA

(RCA) - A land management designation that 

provides management consideration to areas that 

have special resources but don‘t need the 

protection conferred by an area of critical 

environmental concern.
Glossary

926

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

(RMP) - (43 CFR 1601.0-5 (k))"...a land use 

plan as described by the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act. The resource 

management plan generally establishes in a 

written document1. Land areas for limited, restricted or 

exclusive use; designation, including 

ACEC designation; and transfer from 

Bureau of Land Management 

Administration; 

2. Allowable resource uses (either singly 

or in combination) and related levels of

production or use to be maintained; 

3. Resource condition goals and objectives 

to be attained; 

4. Program constraints and general 

management practices needed to achieve 

the above items; 

5. Need for an area to be covered by more 

detailed and specific plans; 

6. Support action, including such measures 

as resource protection, access 

development, realty action, cadastral 

survey, etc., as necessary to achieve the 

above; 

7. General implementation sequences, 

where carrying out a planned action is 

dependent upon prior accomplishment 

of another planned action; and 

8. Intervals and standards for monitoring 

and evaluating the plan to determine the 

effectiveness of the plan and the need 

for amendment or revision. 

It is not a final implementation decision on 

actions which require further specific plans, 

process steps, or decisions under specific 

provisions of law and regulations."

REST- See GRAZING REST.

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).

REST-ROTATION GRAZING - A grazing 

system in which one part of the range is 

ungrazed for an entire grazing year or longer 

while other parts are grazed for a portion or all 

of a growing season.

RIGHT-OF-WAY- A permit or easement that 

authorizes the use of lands for certain specified 

purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, 

telephone lines, or powerlines.

RILL- A narrow, very shallow (a few 

centimeters deep), intermittent water course 

having steep sides and formed as a result of 

erosion.

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 – A linear route declared a road by the 

owner, managed for use by low-cleared vehicles 

having four or more wheels, and maintained for 

regular and continuous. 

ROADSIDE - a general term denoting the area 

adjoining the outer edge of the road.
Glossary

927

ROAD AND TRAIL TYPESPrimary Road – A linear route managed for 

use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance 

vehicles. These routes do not normally meet any 

BLM road design standards.

Secondary Road - Paved or unpaved, a 

regularly maintained one- to two-lane route with 

routes of lesser quality branching from it. 

Connects primary roads and major points.

Tertiary Road - Generally a two-track route 

that may or may not be usable by a two-wheel 

drive vehicle. Does not receive formal 

maintenance.

Primitive Road - A linear route managed 

for use by four-wheel drive or high clearance 

vehicles. Primitive roads do not normally meet 

any BLM road design standards.

Single-Track Trail - A route up to 1/2 

meter wide upon which all-terrain vehicles or 

trucks are not allowed.

Spur - A route that exists for a specific 

purpose, such as access to a specific use or 

feature. Uses can be recreational or commercial. 

Features include campsites, mines, or range 

developments. A spur route is connected to 

another road or route type.

Reclaiming or Reclaimed - A route 

that has had very little or no use, so that there is 

woody vegetation growing in the route that 

would be damaged by the passage of a vehicle. 

Erosion or vegetation may block the route and 

could damage a vehicle or cause it to get stuck.

ROCK CRAWLING - The use of specialized 

motor vehicles for crossing difficult terrain. Also 

known as extreme technical trail driving.

ROOT ZONE- The part of the soil that is or 

can be penetrated by plant roots.

ROUTE- Any motorized, non-motorized, or 

mechanized transportation corridor. Corridor 

may either be terrestrial or waterway. ―Roads‖ 

and ―Trails‖ are considered routes. 

RUN - An area of swiftly flowing water that 

lacks surface agitation or waves and 

approximates uniform flow, and whose water 

surface is roughly parallel to the overall gradient 

of the stream reach.

RUNOFF - The portion of a drainage area‘s 

precipitation that flows from the area.

SAFE YIELD- The rate at which water can be 

withdrawn from a groundwater basin (aquifer) 

without depleting the supply so as to cause 

undesirable effects.

SALABLE MINERALS - Common variety 

minerals on public lands, such as sand and 

gravel, which are used mainly for construction 

and are disposed of by sales or special permits to 

local governments.

SCARIFICATION - A method of seedbed 

preparation that consists of exposing patches of 

mineral soil through mechanical action; the act 

or process of breaking up the ground in 

preparation for regeneration.

SCIENTIFIC DATA RECOVERY- See 

CULTURAL RESOURCE DATA 

RECOVERY.

SCOPING- An early and open process for 

determining the scope of issues to be addressed 

in an environmental impact statement and the 

significant issues related to a proposed action.

SEASONAL GRAZING - Grazing 

restricted to a specific season.

SECONDARY ROAD - See ROAD AND 

TRAIL TYPES.

SECTION - 640 acres, 1 mile square.
Glossary

928

SECTION 404 PERMIT- A permit 

required by the Clean Water Act, under 

specified circumstances, when dredge or fill 

material is placed in the waters of the United 

States, including wetlands.

SECTION 7 CONSULTATION - The 

requirement of Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act that all federal agencies consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service if a proposed 

action might affect a federally listed species or 

its critical habitat.

SEDIMENT - Solid material that originates 

mostly from disintegrated rocks and is 

transported by, suspended in, or deposited from 

water. Sediment includes chemical and 

biochemical precipitates and decomposed 

organic material such as humus.

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS- Rocks, such as 

sandstone, limestone, and shale, that are formed 

from sediments or transported fragments 

deposited in water.

SEDIMENTATION - The process or action 

of depositing sediment.

SEDIMENT LOAD (SEDIMENT 

DISCHARGE) - The amount of sediment, 

measured in dry weight or by volume, which is 

transported through a stream cross-section in a 

given time. Sediment load consists of sediment 

suspended in water and sediment that moves by 

sliding, rolling, or bounding on or near the 

streambed.

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT - The 

movement of mineral and organic solid 

materials in a stream.

SEDIMENT YIELD - The amount of 

sediment removed from a watershed over a 

specified period, usually expressed as tons, acrefeet, or cubic yards of sediment per unit of 

drainage area per year.

SEGREGATION- The removal for a limited 

period, subject to valid existing rights, of a 

specified area of the public lands from the 

operation of the public land laws, including the 

mining laws, pursuant to the exercise by the 

Secretary of the Interior of regulatory authority 

to allow for the orderly administration of the 

public lands. See WITHDRAWAL.

SENSITIVE SPECIES- 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 as 

classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

SHARED USE TRAIL- A trail shared for a 

variety of uses such as motorized and nonmotorized uses; a combination of non-motorized 

uses such as hiking, horseback riding, and 

bicycling; or a combination of motorized uses 

such as dirt bikes and small and large fourwheel-drive vehicles.

SHRINK-SWELL POTENTIAL- The 

susceptibility of soil to volume change due to 

loss or gain in moisture content.

SHOULDER - The portion of the roadway 

contiguous to the travelway for accommodation 

of stopped vehicles.

SIKES ACT OF 1974 - A Federal law that 

promoted federal-state cooperation in managing 

wildlife habitats on both BLM and Forest 

Service lands. The act requires BLM to work 

with State wildlife agencies to plan the 

development and maintenance of wildlife 

habitats and has as its main tool the habitat 

management plan.

SMALL TRACT LANDS - Parcels of 

public lands of 5 acres or less that have been 

found to be chiefly valuable for sale or lease as 

home, cabin, camp, recreational, convalescent, 

or business sites under the Act of June 1, 1938.
Glossary

929

SMOKE PERMIT - In Arizona, a permit that 

an agency must obtain from the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality in order 

to conduct a prescribed burn. Also see

PRESCRIBED FIRE.

SINGLE TRACK TRAIL- See ROAD

AND TRAIL TYPES.

SOCIAL TRAIL- An unplanned random trail 

made by first visitors and then followed by 

others.

SOIL ERODIBILITY- The predisposition of 

a particular soil to be transported by wind or 

water if it is disturbed and exposed to the 

elements.

SOIL INFILTRATION - The ability of soil 

to absorb moisture that falls on it as 

precipitation.

SOIL MOISTURE - The water content 

stored in a soil.

SOIL PIPING - The removal of soil material 

through subsurface flow channels or ―pipes‖ 

formed by seepage water.-

SOIL PRODUCTIVITY- The capacity of a 

soil in its normal environment to produce a 

specified plant or sequence of plants under a 

specified system of management.

SOIL STABILITY - A qualitative term used 

to describe a soil‘s resistance to change. Soil 

stability is determined by intrinsic properties 

such as aspect, depth, elevation, organic matter 

content, parent material, slope, structure, texture, 

and vegetation.

SOIL STRUCTURE - The physical 

constitution of soil material as expressed by size, 

shape, and the degree of development of primary 

soil particles and voids into naturally or 

artificially formed structural units.

SOLUTION MINING - A mining method by 

which salt and sulfur are extracted by injecting 

water (for salt) or superheated water (for sulfur) 

into deposits in the ground. The water dissolves 

the salt, and the resulting brine is pumped to the 

surface. Or the superheated water melts the solid 

sulfur, and the liquid sulfur is pumped to the 

surface.

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.

SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

(SLUP)- A permit granted for purposes neither 

authorized nor forbidden by law.

SPECIAL RECREATION 

MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMAs) -

Areas of intensive recreation use that will be 

managed to retain recreation opportunities while 

protecting other resources and reducing user 

conflicts. See RECREATION 

MANAGEMENT ZONES.

SPECIAL RECREATION PERMIT

(SRP) - An authorization that allows for 

specific nonexclusive permitted recreational 

uses of the public lands and related waters. SRPs 

are issued to control visitor use, protect 

recreational and natural resources, provide for 

the health and safety of visitors, and 

accommodate commercial recreational uses.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES- Plant or 

animal species listed as threatened, endangered, 

candidate, or sensitive by the Federal 

Government or State governments.

SPLIT-ESTATE - Land whose surface rights 

and mineral rights are owned by different 

entities.
Glossary

930

STABILIZATION (CULTURAL 

RESOURCE) - Protective techniques usually 

applied to structures and ruins to keep them in 

their existing condition, prevent further 

deterioration, and provide structural safety 

without significant rebuilding. Capping mudmortared masonry walls with concrete mortar is 

an example of a stabilization technique. Also see 

RESTORATION (CULTURAL 

RESOURCE).

STABILIZATION (SOIL) - Chemical or 

mechanical treatment to increase or maintain the 

stability of a mass of soil or otherwise improve 

its engineering properties.

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR 

RANGELAND HEALTH - See ARIZONA 

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND 

HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR 

GRAZING ADMINISTRATION.

STAGING AREA - An area where 

participants in an activity gather and make final 

preparations for the activity.

STAMP - A machine for crushing ore, used 

particularly in gold milling.

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

OFFICER (SHPO) - The official within and 

authorized by each state at the request of the 

Secretary of the Interior to act as liaison for the 

National Historic Preservation Act. Also see 

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

ACT.

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

(SIP) - A detailed description of the programs a 

state will use to carry out its responsibilities 

under the Clean Air Act. SIPs are collections of 

the regulations used by a state to reduce air 

pollution. The Clean Air Act requires that the 

Environmental Protection Agency approve each 

SIP.

STATE LANDS - See STATE TRUST 

LANDS.

STATE TRUST LANDS - Lands granted to 

Arizona by the Federal Government at territorial 

establishment and at statehood. Totaling 9.4 

million acres, these lands are managed by the 

Arizona State Land Department to yield revenue 

over the long term for the 14 trust beneficiaries. 

The chief beneficiary consists of the public 

schools. Whenever Arizona sells or leases these 

lands and their natural resources, it must pay the 

beneficiaries. Revenues from land sales are 

maintained in a permanent fund managed by the 

State Treasurer, and interest from this fund is 

paid to the beneficiaries.

STOCKING RATE - The number of specific 

kinds and classes of animals grazing or using a 

unit of land for a specific time period. Stocking 

rates may be expressed as a ratio, such as of 

animal units/section, acres/animal unit, or 

acres/animal unit month. 

STOCK TANK (POND) - A water 

impoundment created by building a dam, 

digging a depression, or both, to provide water 

for livestock or wildlife.

STREAMBANK- The portion of a stream 

channel that restricts the sideward movement of 

water at normal water levels. The streambank‘s 

gradient often exceeds 45 ° and exhibits a 

distinct break in slope from the stream bottom.

STREAMBANK STABILITY - A 

streambank‘s relative resistance to erosion, 

which is measured as a percentage of alteration 

to streambanks.

SUBMERGENT VEGETATION - Aquatic 

plants that grow only within water and do not 

break the water‘s surface. Also see 

EMERGENT VEGETATION.

SUBSTRATE - (1) Mineral and organic 

material forming the bottom of a waterway or 
Glossary

931

water body; (2) The base or substance upon 

which an organism is growing.

SUBSURFACE - Of or pertaining to rock or 

mineral deposits which generally are found 

below the ground surface.

SUBWATERSHED - A watershed 

subdivision of unspecified size that forms a 

convenient natural unit.

SUCCESSION - See PLANT 

SUCCESSION.

SUCCULENTS - Plants such as cacti that 

have fleshy tissues designed to conserve 

moisture.

SUPPLEMENTAL FEED - Concentrates or 

harvested feed that is fed to livestock to correct 

the deficiencies of a range diet.

SUPPLEMENTAL WILDERNESS 

VALUES- Resources not required for an area 

to be designated a wilderness but that are 

considered in assessing an area‘s wilderness 

potential. Such values include ecological, 

geologic, and other features of scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historical value.

SUSTAINED YIELD - Achieving and 

maintaining a permanently high level, annual or 

regular period production of renewable land 

resources without impairing the productivity of 

the land and its environmental values.

SWALE - A commonly wet or moist low-lying 

or depressed land area.

TAILINGS - The waste matter from ore after 

the extraction of economically recoverable 

metals and minerals.

TAKE - As defined by the Endangered Species 

Act, "...to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, capture, or collect, or attempt to 

engage in any such conduct..."

TARGET SPECIES - Plant species to be 

reduced or eliminated by a vegetation treatment. 

Also see VEGETATION TREATMENTS.

TERRESTRIAL SPECIES - Grounddwelling plants and animals.

TERTIARY PERIOD - The earlier (65 

million to 1.8 million years ago) of the two 

geologic periods in the Cenozoic era of geologic 

time.

TERTIARY ROAD - See ROAD AND 

TRAIL TYPES.

THREATENED SPECIES - Any plant or 

animal species likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

part of its range and designated by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service under the Endangered 

Species Act. Also see ENDANGERED 

SPECIES.

TRAIL- A linear route managed for humanpowered, stock, or off-highway vehicle forms of 

transportation or for historical or heritage values. 

Trails not generally managed for use by fourwheel drive or high-clearance vehicles.

TRAILHEAD - The terminus of a hiking, 

horse, or bicycle trail accessible by motor 

vehicle and sometimes having parking, signs, a 

visitor register, and camping and sanitary 

facilities.

TRANSFER PAYMENT - A government 

grant to an individual of money that represents a 

gift without anything being received or required 

in return. Examples of transfer payments include 

student scholarship grants, welfare checks, and 

social security benefits.

TRANSITIONAL PATHWAYS - The 

processes that cause a shift from one vegetation 

state to another.

TRAVERTINE - A mineral consisting of 

calcium carbonate deposited by spring waters.
Glossary

932

TREAD LIGHTLY- A not-for-profit 

organization whose mission is to increase 

awareness of ways to enjoy the great outdoors 

while minimizing human impacts.

TRIALS - Off-road competitions in which the 

rider has to surmount obstacles. Points are 

deducted if the rider puts his feet on the ground, 

goes outside the marked course, or fails to clear 

an obstacle.

TURBIDITY- Cloudiness of water measured 

by how deeply light can penetrate it from the 

surface. Highly turbid water is often called 

―muddy‖ although all kinds of suspended 

particles contribute to turbidity.

UNAUTHORIZED USE - Any use of the 

public lands not authorized or permitted.

UNDERSTORY - Plants growing under the 

canopy of other plants. Understory usually refers 

to grasses, forbs, and low shrubs under a tree or 

brush canopy. Also see OVERSTORY.

USABLE FORAGE- That portion of the 

forage that can be grazed without damage to the 

basic resources; may vary with season of use, 

species, and associated species.

UNGULATES - Hoofed animals including 

ruminants but also horses, tapirs, elephants, 

rhinoceroses, and swine.

UNIQUE FARMLAND - As defined by the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, land 

other than prime farmland that is used for 

producing specific high-value food and fiber 

crops, as determined by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. Unique farmland has the special 

combination of soil quality, location, growing 

season, and moisture supply needed to 

economically produce sustained high quality or 

high yields of specific crops when treated and 

managed according to acceptable farming 

methods. Examples of such crops include citrus, 

tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits, and 

vegetables. Also see PRIME FARMLAND.

UNIQUE WATER - A water body 

determined by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality as an outstanding water 

resource of the state because of exceptional 

recreational or ecological significance, such as 

important geology, flora, fauna, water quality, 

aesthetic values, or wilderness characteristics.

UPLANDS - Lands at higher elevations than 

the alluvial plain or low stream terrace; all lands 

outside the riparian-wetland and aquatic zones.

URBAN INTERFACE (WILDLANDURBAN INTERFACE) - The line, area, or 

zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with 

undeveloped wildland or vegetation. This 

interface creates conflicts and complicates 

fighting wildfires and conducting prescribed 

burns, as well as all other natural resource 

management activities.

UTILIZATION (FORAGE) - The 

proportion of the current year‘s forage 

consumed or destroyed by grazing animals. 

Utilization is usually expressed as a percentage.

VALID EXISTING RIGHTS - Locatable 

mineral development rights that existed when 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) was enacted on October 21, 1976. 

Some areas are segregated from entry and 

location under the Mining Law to protect certain 

values or allow certain uses. Mining claims that 

existed as of the effective date of the segregation 

may still be valid if they can meet the test of 

discovery of a valuable mineral required under 

the Mining Law. Determining the validity of 

mining claims located on segregated lands 

requires BLM to conduct a valid existing rights 

determination.

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, 
Glossary

933

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."

VASCULAR PLANT- A plant in the phylum 

Tracheophyta, which includes spermatophytes 

(seed plants) and pteridophytes (ferns and 

related plants).

VEGETATION STATES- The different 

plant communities produced by an ecological 

site.

VEGETATION STRUCTURE - The 

composition of an area‘s vegetation--plant 

species, growth forms, abundance, vegetation 

types, and spatial arrangement.

VEGETATION TREATMENTSTreatments that improve vegetation condition or 

production. Such treatments may include 

seedings; prescribed burning; or chemical, 

mechanical, and biological plant control.

VEGETATION TYPE - A plant community 

with distinguishable characteristics.

VIABILITY- The capability of living, 

developing, growing, or germinating under 

favorable conditions.

VIEWSHED - The entire area visible from a 

viewpoint.

VISITOR DAY- 12 visitor hours, which may 

be aggregated continuously, intermittently, or 

simultaneously by one or more people.

VISUAL ASPECT- The visual first 

impression of vegetation at a particular time or 

seen from a specific point.

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

(VRM) - The planning, design, and 

implementing of management objectives to 

provide acceptable levels of visual impacts for

all BLM resource management activities.

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

(VRM) CLASSES - Classes with specific 

objectives for maintaining or enhancing scenic 

quality including the kinds landscape 

modifications that are acceptable to meet the 

objectives.

Class I: (Preservation) provides for natural, 

ecological changes only. This class includes 

wilderness areas, some natural areas, some wild 

and scenic rivers, and other similar sites where 

landscape modification should be restricted.

Class II: (Retention of the landscape character) 

includes areas where changes in any of the basic 

elements (form, line, color, or texture) caused by 

management activities should not be evident in 

the characteristic landscape.

Class III: (Partial retention of the landscape 

character) includes areas where changes in the 

basic elements caused by management activities 

may be evident in the characteristic landscape. 

But the changes should remain subordinate to 

the existing landscape character.

Class IV: (Modification of the landscape 

character) includes areas where changes may 

subordinate the original composition and 

character. But the changes should reflect what 

could be a natural occurrence in the 

characteristic landscape.

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 

(VOCs) - Carbon-containing compounds that 

with few exceptions evaporate into the air. Often 

having odors, VOCs contribute to the forming of 

smog and may themselves be toxic. Some 

examples of VOCs are gasoline, alcohol, and 

solvents used in paints.

WARM-SEASON PLANTS - Plants whose 

major growth occurs during the spring, summer, 

or fall and that are usually dormant in winter. 

Also see COOL-SEASON PLANTS.
Glossary

934

WATER BAR - A low ridge of dirt, rock, or 

other material placed across a trail or dirt road 

on a hill to divert flowing water and protect the 

trail or road from erosion.

WATER DEVELOPMENTS -

Construction of artificial, or modification of 

natural water sources to provide reliable, 

accessible water for livestock, wildlife, or 

people.

WATERSHED (CATCHMENT) - A 

topographically delineated area that is drained 

by a stream system, that is, the total land area 

above some point on a stream or river that drains 

water past that point. The watershed is a 

hydrologic unit often used as a physicalbiological unit and a socioeconomic-political 

unit for planning and managing natural 

resources. 

WATERSHED CONDITION 

(WATERSHED HEALTH) - The 

comparison of watershed processes to normal or 

expected measurements of properties such as 

soil cover, erosion rate, runoff rate, and 

groundwater table elevation; an assessment or 

categorization of an area by erosion conditions, 

erosion hazards, and the soil 

moisture/temperature regime.

WATERSHED FUNCTION - The 

combination of processes attributed to 

watersheds as part of the hydrologic cycle, 

including interception of rain by plants, rocks, 

and litter; surface storage by the soil; 

groundwater storage; stream channel storage; 

soil evaporation; plant transpiration; and runoff. 

These processes affect the following properties 

of the watershed: runoff rate, water infiltration 

rate, soil building rate, soil erosion rate, 

groundwater recharge rate, groundwater 

discharge rate, water table elevation, and surface 

water discharge. These properties in turn affect 

plant communities through soil attributes, 

including soil parent material, soil moisture, and 

nutrients; stream and rivers through flooding 

duration and magnitude, as well as sediment 

load, which structures the dimension, pattern, 

and profile of channels; and lakes and reservoirs 

through sedimentation and nutrient input.

WEED - Any plant that interferes with 

management objectives. A weed may be native 

or non-native, invasive or passive, or nonnoxious.

WETLAND - An area that is inundated or 

saturated by surface or ground water often and 

long enough to support and that under normal 

circumstances supports a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated 

soil. Wetlands include marshes, shallows, 

swamps, lake shores, bogs, muskegs, wet 

meadows, estuaries, cienegas, and riparian areas.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

CORRIDOR - See NATIONAL WILD AND 

SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM.

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS -

BLM Instruction Memorandum 2003-275 

Change 1 defines Wilderness Characteristics as,

"Features of the land associated with the concept 

of wilderness that may be considered in land use 

planning when BLM determines that those 

characteristics are reasonably present, of 

sufficient value (condition, uniqueness, 

relevance, importance) and need (trend, risk), 

and are practical to manage.

NATURALNESS - Lands and resources 

exhibit a high degree of naturalness when 

affected primarily by the forces of nature and 

where the imprint of human activity is 

substantially unnoticeable. BLM has authority 

to inventory, assess, and/or monitor the 

attributes of the lands and resources on public 

lands, which, taken together, are an indication of 

an area‘s naturalness. These attributes may 

include the presence or absence of roads and 

trails, fences and other improvements; the nature 

and extent of landscape modifications; the 

presence of native vegetation communities; and 

the connectivity of habitats.
Glossary

935

Solitude and Primitive/Unconfined 

Recreation - Visitors may have outstanding 

opportunities for solitude, or primitive and 

unconfined types of recreation when the sights, 

sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or 

infrequent, where visitors can be isolated, alone 

or secluded from others, where the use of the 

area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical 

means, and where no or minimal developed 

recreation facilities are encountered."

WILDCAT ROAD - A nonpermitted road on 

federally managed land.

WILDFIRE - Any wildland fire that is not 

meeting management objectives and therefore 

requires a suppression response.

WILDLAND FIRE - Any nonstructure fire, 

other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the 

wildland.

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE

(WUI) - Areas where urban fuels directly meet 

natural fuels. This interface occurs mainly 

within 66 to 200 feet of houses, where fire most 

directly threatens houses and where a defensible 

zone can be developed.

WILDLIFE - A broad term that includes birds, 

reptiles, amphibians, and nondomesticated 

mammals.

WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA: 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS 

(WMAs) - General areas that are managed to 

enhance the habitat of one or more wildlife 

species.

WING FENCE - Fencing extending out from 

a corral and serving to help funnel livestock into 

the corral.

WITHDRAWAL- 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, from one 

department, bureau, or agency to another 

department, bureau, or agency. Also see 

SEGREGATION. 

XERO-RIPARIAN - 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.
Additional Tables

936

Additional Tables 

From Chapter One:

 Table 1-1. Identified Scoping Issues Addressed in the Formulation of Alternatives

Resource 

Category Issue

Applicable to 

Agua Fria 

National 

Monument

Applicable to 

BradshawHarquahala 

Planning 

Area

Soil, Air, and 

Water Resources

Conduct hydrological studies of watershed. x x

Restrict access to surface water from miners. x x

Restrict access to surface water from OHV users. x x

Biological 

Resources

Preserve habitat for bird and wildlife viewing. x x

Reintroduce native fish species to aquatic systems in the area. x x

Riparian 

Resources

Protect the instream flow of the Agua Fria River. x x

Restrict access by livestock. x x

Cultural 

Resources

Prevent grazing in areas having significant cultural resources. x x

Allow only limited access to existing sites, such as through 

guided tours.

x x

Visual Resources Preserve and keep land untouched. x x

Preserve natural beauty. x x

Recreation Allow for recreation use. x x

Establish educational programs for all users of public lands. x x

Restrict shooting. x x

Better maintain trails and encourage users to stay on trails. x x

Build visitor center. x

Develop multiple use areas. x

Transportation Create environmentally sensitive transportation system. x x

Close and rehabilitate all vehicle routes that threaten cultural 

and biological resources.

x x

Designate primitive areas and motorized areas. x x

Maintain public access. x x

Limit access to discourage extensive use. x
Additional Tables

937

Allow public access for non-motorized modes only. x x

Off-Highway 

Vehicles (OHV)

Limit OHV use. x x

Maintain and allow OHV use on existing trails. x x

Develop more OHV trails. x

Rangeland 

Management/Graz

ing

Limit grazing. x x

Continue leases for grazing. x x

Mineral Resources Reduce and limit mining. x

Continue existing mining leases. x

Expand mining. x

Fire Management Return natural fire regime to mesa tops. x x

Return natural fire cycles. x x

Special Area 

Designations

Inventory wilderness. x x

ACECs Designate Agua Fria River as an area of critical 

environmental concern (ACEC).

x

Lands and Realty Remove land from the disposal list. x

Manage lands to preserve cultural and biological resources. x x

Stop urban sprawl and prohibit new development. x

Restrict development to prevent groundwater depletion. x
Additional Tables

938

Table 1-2. Identified Management Concerns Addressed in the Formulation of Alternatives

Resource Category Management Concern

Applicable to 

Agua Fria 

National 

Monument

Applicable 

to 

BradshawHarquahala 

Planning 

Area

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources

Identify and recover, where practical, ―limited‖ waters. x x

Identify and implement restoration where needed for 

Category I watersheds in the planning area.

x x

Address activities affecting air quality standards. x x

Ensure availability of water resources; inventory and 

quantify water resources.

x x

Identify surface and groundwater resources, including 

instream flows, and determine the flows needed to 

preserve the wild and scenic river segments in their 

free-flowing condition.

x

Biological Resources Assess and minimize impacts that current and future 

land uses could have on sensitive wildlife habitat areas

by fragmentation, land ownership patterns, increased 

visitor use, and the dewatering of streams and springs 

on public lands.

x x

Maintain existing functional wildlife habitat 

improvements and adequate water distribution for 

wildlife populations.

x x

Improve plant or wildlife diversity, with human 

intervention if needed, to increase biological diversity.

x x

Assess and manage for invasive plant and wildlife 

species.

x x

Cultural Resources Determine factors that will guide how specific sites, or 

categories of sites, are allocated to use categories 

(scientific, traditional, public, and experimental uses).

x x

Identify significant cultural resources and protect them 

from looting, vandalism, natural deterioration, and 

damage from vehicle traffic and other land uses.

x x

Determine how to best provide opportunities in the 

area for public visitation, education, and commercial 

tours, while protecting cultural resources.

x x

Address exclusion and protection of cultural resources 

in Recreation and Public Purpose Act leases.

x

Address measures to protect sites, landmarks, or use 

areas that have sacred or other traditional importance to 

tribes.

x x

Determine how to protect and allow for proper research 

or educational uses of significant paleontological 

resources.

x x
Additional Tables

939

Manage portions of the monument that include Perry 

Mesa Archaeological District in coordination with 

Tonto National Forest.

x

Visual Resources Evaluate VRM impacts from existing roads, 

transmission lines, and other structures within the

planning area.

x x

Complete (or revise) the scenic quality assessment. x x

Visual Resources Develop a strategy to address increasing uses of 

dispersed camping.

x x

Address impacts of wildcat dumping and littering. x x

Designate utility corridors in accordance with the 

Proclamation

x

Wild Horses and Burros Maintain a viable population of burros at the 

appropriate management level (AML), minimizing 

impacts to wilderness and wildlife habitat and 

providing increased recreational opportunities.

x

Recreation In management plans, balance the consumptive uses of 

visitors with BLM‘s requirements to protect resources 

within the planning area.

x x

Consider public opinion and the Proclamation when 

determining the level of services that will be provided 

within the monument (e.g. restroom facilities, types of 

routes, parking areas).

x

Determine and address points of administrative and 

public access.

x x

Determine current and future recreational activities 

(including commercial activities) and associated

impacts.

x x

Off-Highway Vehicles 

(OHVs)

Address the impacts from increased motorized access 

to high-value areas with sensitive resources defined in 

the Proclamation.

x

OHV use on public lands has provided for greater 

motorized access into areas that formerly supported 

more solitary uses.

x x

Address conflict that may exist between motorized and 

non-motorized users.

x x

Determine which roads will remain open, limited, or 

closed.

x x

Evaluate if alternative BLM managed and would better 

support OHV, or if OHV routes should be 

―interpretive.‖

x

Establish educational and volunteer opportunities 

public land users.

x
Additional Tables

940

Determine what zones that will support specific types 

of use from setting and natural and social attributes.

x

Transportation Network Coordinate with public entities to assure continued 

access and to further determine access issues and 

concerns.

x x

Maintain public access and multiple uses where 

appropriate.

x x

Provide for an environmentally sensitive transportation 

system. 

x x

Transportation Network Address the needs of disabled individuals. x x

Increased access may result in recreation sprawl, affect 

visitor experiences, threaten cultural and biological 

resources, and degrade values set forth by the 

Proclamation.

x x

Rangeland 

Management

Invasive wildlife species may be harming native 

wildlife in some areas.

x x

Invasive Species Implement efforts to eradicate invasive wildlife species 

where warranted in cooperation with the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department (AGFD).

x

Identify, map, and treat noxious weeds. x x

Grazing Retire grazing from allotments in wilderness areas 

where there is voluntary opportunity or if BLM 

acquires the allotment.

x

Redesignation of public land to other uses may require 

size and shape adjustments to current grazing 

allotments.

x x

Evaluate currently scheduled range improvements and 

determine if these will accomplish land management 

goals.

x x

Reevaluate perennial and ephemeral grazing 

classifications.

x

Grazing allotments may affect natural or cultural 

objects.

x

Determine if any lessees do not consistently use 

allotments.

x

Determine if unused or abandoned allotments can be 

retired.

x

Riparian Habitat Evaluate impacts from OHV use and improper 

livestock grazing.

x x

Areas may have grazing restrictions established to 

facilitate proper functioning condition or other 

vegetation goals.

x

Determine current water rights and water needs to 

maintain existing riparian corridor, both above and 

x
Additional Tables

941

below ground.

Determine the level of instream flow needed to 

maintain corridors, and evaluate current instream flow.

x

Rangeland 

Management

Riparian Habitat (Cont‘d)

Maintain surface and subsurface flows in the Agua Fria 

River, and its tributaries to support riparian and 

wildlife resources.

x

Determine amount of surface and subsurface flows 

needed to maintain habitat.

x

Mineral Resources Develop abandoned mine management policies. x x

Determine what lands have mineral potential, and 

clarify responsibilities for split-estate lands.

x

Determine post-mining land uses. x x

Fire Management Assess land use patterns to determine areas where 

natural fire cycles can be allowed to return.

x

Evaluate fuel treatments to reduce threat of 

catastrophic wildfires and determine proper treatments 

for local environments.

x

Evaluate the current fire plan, and incorporate portions 

in the RMPs.

x

Establish guidelines for prescribed burning. x

Evaluate possible impacts on special areas where, in 

the event of a wildfire, restoration and rehabilitation 

have a reasonable chance for success and potential 

resource damage justifies the attempt.

x

Balance proposed fuel treatments with authorized 

activities, the Proclamation, laws, and regulations.

x x

Determine special fire management considerations 

needed for the national monument and the vicinity.

x

Evaluate constraints for fire activities. x

Wilderness 

Characteristics

Determine if certain public lands have wilderness 

character.

x x

Manage lands with primitive recreation values to 

preserve those values. 

x x

ACECs ACEC designations may be warranted to protect 

sensitive areas or resources, or to address safety 

hazards.

x x

Determine if ACEC designations are suitable, 

considering criteria outlined in the Proclamation.

x

Management prescriptions may require modification to 

ensure consistency with the Proclamation.

x

Wild and Scenic Rivers Assess unique characteristics of the Hassayampa River. x

Ensure that the Agua Fria River is managed to preserve 

its wild and scenic eligibility and associated resources. x
Additional Tables

942

Consider threats to the remarkable values of the Agua 

Fria River and determine ways to maintain and protect 

the river.

x

Health and Safety

Hazardous Materials 

and Solid Waste

Update management plans for the storage, use, and 

disposal of hazardous materials either directly by BLM 

or by lessees of BLM-managed lands.

x x

Determine possible hazardous materials used and or 

stored by BLM or by lessees of BLM-managed lands.

x x

Health and Safety

Hazardous Materials 

and Solid Waste

Determine if potential illegal hazardous waste sites 

exist and develop a strategy to improve these sites.

x x

List and rank risks at former mining sites, prospector 

pits, and ore processing sites.

x x

Identify, prioritize, and mitigate natural features that 

might threaten public health and safety.

x x

Lands and Realty 

Land Tenure 

Adjustment

Assess the potential for acquiring and managing lands 

managed by the Arizona State Land Department 

(ASLD). 

x

Assess the availability of land for waste disposal 

facilities. 

x

Determine locations of rights-of-way that will be 

restricted or prohibited, to protect federal lands and 

resources.

x x

Develop criteria and determine if inholdings and 

suitable adjacent lands will be acquired from willing 

sellers.

x

Utility and 

Transportation 

Corridors and 

Communication Sites

Evaluate routes for major roads and utilities. 

Determine which lands will be made available for 

transportation and utility corridors.

x

Determine which, if any, lands will be made available 

for communication sites.

x x

Assess the placement of the Black Canyon utility 

corridor and address possibly relocating it. Determine 

avoidance areas and exclusion areas of rights-of-way 

corridors in the monument.

x

Expansion of the I-17 right-of-way may affect 

monument values.

x
Additional Tables

943

From Chapter Two:

Table 2-7. Desired Future Conditions and Land Use Allocations for Vegetation Communities in Arizona

Vegetation Community 

Type Desired Future Conditions (DFC) Land Use Allocation

Upland Sonoran Desert 

Scrub

DFCs are for an adequate cover and mix of natural plant 

species that have good vigor. For fire management and fire 

ecology, DFC are for fire to control or reduce the exotic annual 

weeds such as red brome and limit woody vegetation to 

nonhazardous levels.

2

Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub DFCs are for an adequate cover and a mix of natural plant 

species that have good vigor. For fire management and fire 

ecology, DFC are for fire to control or reduce the exotic annual 

weeds such as red brome and to limit woody vegetation to 

nonhazardous levels.

2

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland

DFCs are for annual weeds such as cheatgrass to be 

controlled; ladder fuels and downed woody debris to be limited 

or not present; and juniper and piñon pine tree densities and 

cover to occur at their historic range of variation.

1

Great Basin Desert Scrub DFCs are for fire to naturally reduce annual weed densities 

and cover, limit, or reduce the invasion of juniper. Densities of 

shrubs, such as big sagebrush, are to be maintained within their 

historic range of variability.

1

Plains and Great Basin 

Grasslands

DFCs are for a predominance of perennial grass cover and 

a reduced cover of annual grasses. DFC are for fire to naturally 

inhibit the invasion of woody shrubs such as rabbitbrush, 

snakeweed, and big sagebrush.

1

Semi-desert Grassland DFCs are for perennial grass to cover its historic range of 

variability and annual grass cover to be reduced. DFC are for 

fire to naturally inhibit the invasion of woody plants such as 

juniper, tarbush, whitethorn, and creosotebush.

1

Interior Chaparral DFCs are for fire to naturally maintain shrub cover while 

reducing annual grass cover, control the invasion of wood plants 

such as juniper and piñon pine, and reduce the average age of 

chaparral stands through controlled fire or mechanical 

treatment.

1

Riparian DFCs are for annual weed cover and density to be 

controlled and ladder fuels and downed woody debris to be 

limited or not present. Disturbances such as livestock grazing, 

mining, and OHV travel, which can potentially reduce natural 

vegetation cover and vigor, are managed to maintain adequate 

cover and mix of natural plant species.

2

Land Use 

Allocation 1:

Wildland Fire Use Areas suitable for wildland fire use for 

resource management benefit.

Land Use 

Allocation 2:

Non-Wildland Fire 

Use

Areas not suitable for wildland fire use for resource management 

benefit.
Additional Tables

944

From Chapter Three: 

Table 3-5. Population and Household Characteristics

State

 

County Human Resource Unit (HRU)

Arizona Maricopa Yavapai Wickenburg Prescott

Lake 

Pleasant Phoenix Buckeye

Total Population

1990 Census 3,665,228 2,122,101 107,714 8,363 59,515 117,996 1,952,531 21,794

2000 Census 5,130,632 3,072,149 167,517 10,744 92,826 292,540 2,677,213 40,918

% Change 40 45 56 28 56 148 37 88

Total 

Households

1990 Census 1,368,843 807,560 44,778 3,711 24,655 54,220 735,648 6,877

2000 Census 1,901,327 1,132,886 70,171 4,972 38,901 123,327 973,292 12,114

% Change 39 40 57 34 58 127 32 76

Note: HRUs represent distinct areas and do not necessarily coincide with jurisdictional boundaries. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and JKA.
Additional Tables

945

Table 3-6. Comparison of Total Housing Units and Average Value of Homes

State County Human Resource Unit

Arizona Maricopa Yavapai Wickenburg Prescott

Lake 

Pleasant Phoenix Buckeye

Total 

Housing Units

1990 Census 1,659,430 952,041 54,805 5,067 59,515 67,391 864,337 9,015

2000 Census 2,189,189 1,250,231 81,730 6,414 92,826 142,337 1,068,075 13,536

% Change 32 31 49 27 56 111 24 50

1990 Avg. 

Val., Owned Home 

$80,100 $102,650 $101,911 $88,711 $104,881 $102,131 $101,553 $75,185

2000 Avg. 

Val., Owned Home 

$121,300 $166,098 $170,962 $151,261 $168,944 $197,433 $158,426 $143,723

% Change 51 62 68 71 61 93 56 91

Note: HRUs represent distinct areas and do not necessarily coincide with jurisdictional boundaries. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and JKA.
Additional Tables

946

Table 3-12. Ethnic Population Characteristics

County Human Resource Unit

% of Total Population (by 

Race)

Maricopa Yavapai Wickenburg Prescott Lake Pleasant Phoenix Buckeye

White

1990 Census 85 96 95 96 92 85 72

2000 Census* 80 94 94 95 93 78 75

% Change 6 -2 1 1 1 9 3

Black or African American

1990 Census 4 0 0 0 1 4 2

2000 Census* 4 0 0 0 2 4 4

% Change 0 0 0 0 100 0 100

American Indian/Alaska Native

1990 Census 2 2 1 1 0 2 13

2000 Census* 2 2 1 1 0 2 8

% Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 -38

Asian/Hawaiian/Pac. Island

1990 Census 2 1 1 0 0 2 1

2000 Census* 2 1 0 1 2 3 1

% Change in Asian Population 0 0 0 100 200 50 0

Hispanic/Latino

1990 Census 16 6 8 6 10 17 22

2000 Census 25 10 11 8 9 27 26

% Change 56 67 38 33 -10 59 18

Notes:

*Race counts exclude those who indicated that they are of two or more races. 

That is, 2000 race variables only include those who said they are of one race.

HRUs represent distinct areas and do not necessarily coincide with 

jurisdictional boundaries. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and JKA.
Additional Tables

947

From Chapter Four: 

Table 4-2. Population Growth and Emissions Generated by Land Disposal Parcels Inside Air Quality Nonattainment 

Areas.

Alternative

Emission Factors Parcels Within 

Ozone Nonattainment Area

Parcels Within

PM10 Nonattainment Area

NOx

(1)

(Tons/year 

per capita)

PM10

(2)

(Tons/year per 

acre of 

developed land)

Land 

Disposal 

Acres

2025 

Population

NOx

Emissions 

(tons/yr)

Land 

Disposal 

Acres

2025 

Population

PM10

Emissions 

(tons/yr)

A 0.027 0.0487 980 3,390 92 1,060 4,060 51

B 0.027 0.0487 990 3,415 92 10,870 18,755 529

C

(160 acre 

parcels) 0.027 0.0487 325 1,785 48 405 1,910 20

C

(5000 

acres or 

less) 0.027 0.0487 1,925 4,535 122 3,640 5,515 177

D 0.027 0.0487 0 0 0 0 0 0

E 0.027 0.0487 1,290 3,020 82 2,170 4,450 106

Total Regional NOx

Emissions from All 

Existing Sources Within 

Ozone Nonattainment 

Area (Year 1999)

81,000(1)

Total Regional PM10 

Emissions from All 

Existing Sources Within 

PM10 Nonattainment 

Area (Year 2001)

79,500(3)

(1) Based on emission and population data from 1999 Periodic Ozone Emission Inventory (MAG, 2002)

(2) Based on regional PM10 modeling data from MAG (Chiou personal communication)

(3) Regional PM10 emission estimate from MAG, 2000.

Example calculation (NOx Emissions, Alternative A)

NOx emission factor = 0.027 tpy/capita

Alternative A population increase = 6,100 persons

Annual NOx emissions = (0.027 tpy/capita) x (6,100 persons) = 165 tons/yr of NOx

Example calculation (PM10 Emissions, Alternative A)

PM10 emission factor = 0.0487 tpy/acre of developed land

Alternative A land disposal acreage = 1,355 acres converted to developed land

Annual NOx emissions = (0.0487 tpy/acre) x (1,355 acres) = 66 tons/yr of PM10
Additional Tables

948

Table 4-4. Acres Closed to Mining by Alternative

Alternative A

Closed to Saleable Minerals 167,720

Closed to Locatable Minerals 171,680

Closed to Leasable Minerals 171,680

Alternative B

Closed to Saleable Minerals 224,400

Closed to Locatable Minerals 101,000

Closed to Leasable Minerals 101,000

Alternative C

Closed to Saleable Minerals 330,940

Closed to Locatable Minerals 188,450

Closed to Leasable Minerals 188,190

Alternative D

Closed to Saleable Minerals 452,000

Closed to Locatable Minerals 457,664

Closed to Leasable Minerals 464,734

Alternative E

Closed to Saleable Minerals 167,720

Closed to Locatable Minerals 171,940

Closed to Leasable Minerals 171,680
Additional Tables

949

Table 4-7 - Acres of Inventoried Mineral Potential that would be Closed by Alternative.

Alternative Mineral Type Mineral Potential Federal 

Acres

Federal Acres 

Closed

% closed

A – No 

Action

Saleable

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 32,750 11.7

Marble 6,170 0 0.0

Sand and Gravel 7,060 450 6.4

Leasable

Geothermal 45,830 370 0.8

Oil and Gas 790 6 0.8

Salt Deposit 45,480 1,620 3.6

Locatable

High Potential 94,100 3,170 3.4

Moderate Potential 737,400 60,820 8.2

B Saleable

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 48,910 17.5

Marble 6,170 6,090 98.7

Sand and Gravel 7,060 350 5.0

Leasable

Geothermal 45,830 360 0.8

Oil and Gas 790 0 0.0

Salt Deposit 45,480 1,670 3.7

Locatable

High Potential 94,100 3,950 4.2

Moderate Potential 737,400 120,430 16.3

C Saleable

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 65,220 23.4

Marble 6,170 5,620 91.1

Sand and Gravel 7,060 350 5.0

Leasable

Geothermal 45,830 0 0.0

Oil and Gas 790 0 0.0

Salt Deposit 45,480 1,670 3.7

Locatable

High Potential 94,100 12,920 13.7

Moderate Potential 737,400 152,510 20.7

D Saleable

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 93,870 33.7

Marble 6,170 5,620 91.1

Sand and Gravel 7,060 450 6.4

Leasable

Geothermal 45,830 2,030 4.4

Oil and Gas 790 0 0.0

Salt Deposit 45,480 14,410 31.7

Locatable

High Potential 94,100 47,000 49.9

Moderate Potential 737,400 314,990 42.7

E – Agency 

Proposed 

Alternative

Saleable

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 48,250 17.3

Marble 6,170 300 4.9

Sand and Gravel 7,060 630 8.9
Additional Tables

950

Leasable

Geothermal 45,830 370 0.8

Oil and Gas 790 6 0.8

Salt Deposit 45,480 1,690 3.7

Locatable

High Potential 94,100 3,950 4.2

Moderate Potential 737,400 112,070 15.2
Appendix A

951

Appendix A 

Agua Fria National Monument Proclamation 

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary (Grand Canyon, Arizona)

For Immediate Release, January 11, 2000

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The windswept, grassy mesas and formidable canyons of Agua Fria National Monument embrace an 

extraordinary array of scientific and historic resources. The ancient ruins within the monument, with their 

breathtaking vistas and spectacular petroglyphs, provide a link to the past, offering insights into the lives of the 

peoples who once inhabited this part of the desert Southwest. The area's architectural features and artifacts are 

tangible objects that can help researchers reconstruct the human past. Such objects and, more importantly, the 

spatial relationships among them, provide outstanding opportunities for archeologists to study the way humans 

interacted with one another, neighboring groups, and with the environment that sustained them in prehistoric 

times. 

The monument contains one of the most significant systems of late prehistoric sites in the American Southwest. 

Between A.D. 1250 and 1450, its pueblo communities were populated by up to several thousand people. During 

this time, many dwelling locations in the Southwest were abandoned and groups became aggregated in a 

relatively small number of densely populated areas. The monument encompasses one of the best examples of 

these areas, containing important archeological evidence that is crucial to understanding the cultural, social, and 

economic processes that accompanied this period of significant change. 

At least 450 prehistoric sites are known to exist within the monument and there are likely many more. There are at 

least four major settlements within the area, including Pueblo La Plata, Pueblo Pato, the Baby Canyon Ruin 

group, and the Lousy Canyon group. These consist of clusters of stone-masonry pueblos, some containing at least 

100 rooms. These settlements are typically situated at the edges of steep canyons, and offer a panorama of ruins, 

distinctive rock art panels, and visually spectacular settings. 

Many intact petroglyph sites within the monument contain rock art symbols pecked into the surfaces of boulders 

and cliff faces. The sites range from single designs on boulders to cliffs covered with hundreds of geometric and 

abstract symbols. Some of the most impressive sites are associated with major pueblos, such as Pueblo Pato. 

The monument holds an extraordinary record of prehistoric agricultural features, including extensive terraces 

bounded by lines of rocks and other types of landscape modifications. The agricultural areas, as well as other 

sites, reflect the skills of ancient residents at producing and obtaining food supplies sufficient to sustain a 

population of several thousand people. 

The monument also contains historic sites representing early Anglo-American history through the 19th century, 

including remnants of Basque sheep camps, historic mining features, and military activities. 
Appendix A

952

In addition to its rich record of human history, the monument contains other objects of scientific interest. This 

expansive mosaic of semi-desert grassland, cut by ribbons of valuable riparian forest, is an outstanding biological 

resource. The diversity of vegetative communities, topographical features, and relative availability of water 

provide habitat for a wide array of sensitive wildlife species, including the lowland leopard frog, the Mexican 

garter snake, the common black hawk, and the desert tortoise. Other wildlife is abundant and diverse, including 

pronghorn, mule deer, and white-tail deer. Javelina, mountain lions, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, 

and neotropical migratory birds also inhabit the area. Elk and black bear are present, but less abundant. Four 

species of native fish, including the longfin dace, the Gila mountain sucker, the Gila chub, and the speckled dace, 

exist in the Agua Fria River and its tributaries. 

Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431) authorizes the President, in his discretion, to 

declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic 

or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States 

to be national monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be 

confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be

protected. 

WHEREAS it appears that it would be in the public interest to reserve such lands as a national monument to be 

known as the Agua Fria National Monument: 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by the authority 

vested in me by section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431), do proclaim that there are 

hereby set apart and reserved as the Agua Fria National Monument, for the purpose of protecting the objects 

identified above, all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the United States within the boundaries of 

the area described on the map entitled "Agua Fria National Monument" attached to and forming a part of this 

proclamation. The Federal land and interests in land reserved consist of approximately 71,100 acres, which is the 

smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. 

For the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, all motorized and mechanized vehicle use off road will 

be prohibited, except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Arizona with 

respect to fish and wildlife management. 

The establishment of this monument is subject to valid existing rights. 

All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of this monument are hereby appropriated and 

withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land 

laws, including but not limited to withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from 

disposition under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing, other than by exchange that furthers the 

protective purposes of the monument. Lands and interests in lands within the proposed monument not owned by 

the United States shall be reserved as a part of the monument upon acquisition of title thereto by the United 

States. 

There is hereby reserved, as of the date of this proclamation and subject to valid existing rights, a quantity of 

water sufficient to fulfill the purposes for which this monument is established. Nothing in this reservation shall be 

construed as a relinquishment or reduction of any water use or rights reserved or appropriated by the United 

States on or before the date of this proclamation. 
Appendix A

953

The Secretary of the Interior shall manage the monument through the Bureau of Land Management, pursuant to 

applicable legal authorities, to implement the purposes of this proclamation. 

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the Bureau of Land Management in issuing and administering grazing 

leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation; 

however, the national monument shall be the dominant reservation. 

Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of 

this monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of January, in the year of our Lord two 

thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth. 

WILLIAM J. CLINTON 
Appendix B

954

Appendix B- Scoping Results

 

Scoping Process 

The formal scoping process began on April 24, 2002 with the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in 

the Federal Register. The NOI initiated solicitation for public comment. A total of 10 public scoping 

meetings were held during the scoping period. 

Public meetings were advertised by a variety of methods. Volume 1 of the ―Arizona Planning Bulletin for 

the Agua Fria National Monument Plan and Bradshaw-Harquahala Management Plan Revision,‖ 

available in both English and Spanish, was distributed to a mailing list of more than 1,700 individuals and 

organizations. The bulletin included a statement of the purpose and need for the project, a description of 

the public scoping process, information about upcoming meeting times and locations, and stamped, preaddressed ―planning worksheets‖ for each planning area. Interested parties were encouraged to complete 

these questionnaires and submit them to BLM to make their concerns known. The public was also invited 

to submit comments via e-mail or to visit the PD in person to review comments received to date. 

Legal notices of the public scoping meetings were published, as required, in six newspapers in the 

geographic area of the planning efforts. Flyers were prepared in both English and Spanish versions and 

distributed throughout the planning areas, and a press release was prepared and distributed to hundreds of 

media outlets throughout Arizona. 

The scoping meetings provided an opportunity for the public to receive information, ask questions, and 

provide input into BLM‘s planning effort for the two planning areas. Informative brochures and fact 

sheets were available to meeting attendees, and planning area maps delineating current land uses were 

displayed at each meeting. Discussions covered plan development and environmental review processes, 

in addition to relevant timelines. All comments were transcribed onto a flip chart during the meeting and 

were recorded via tape recorder. 

Collaborative Planning Process 

BLM PD contracted with James Kent Associates (JKA) to work with residents and community groups in 

the planning areas regarding their issues and concerns. JKA staff visited the communities of Wickenburg, 

Yarnell, Buckeye, Tonopah, Castle Hot Springs, New River, Black Canyon City, Cordes Junction, Mayer, 

Dewey, Humboldt, and Prescott Valley. They have also been in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Prescott, talking 

with environmental and recreation groups. Citizens have discussed their concerns with BLM land use 

management in their areas, as well as suggested ideas for improving current land management practices. 

Residents in some areas have even conducted community surveys in order to provide input and guidance 

to BLM in the planning process. 

BLM has also focused on internally identifying management concerns and on reviewing their own 

policies and goals, and contracted with the consulting firm of Jones & Stokes to collect data, conduct 

meetings, and facilitate the planning process as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Appendix B

955

In the coming months, BLM will conduct workshops in a number of communities to develop alternatives 

for analysis in the EIS process. Alternatives must reflect citizen interests as well as agency concerns to 

evaluate how land use decisions will be made in the future. Citizens are encouraged to participate 

throughout this process. 

Cooperating Agencies and Agency 

Coordination

The PD held a cooperating agency workshop on October 30, 2002 to enable potential cooperators to meet 

each other, discuss BLM‘s planning process and the meaning of cooperating agency status, and begin 

developing the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that are required for entities to become formal 

cooperators in BLM‘s planning process. 

BLM is currently working with the Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Department of 

Transportation, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Maricopa County, Yavapai County, City of Phoenix, 

City of Peoria, and Town of Wickenburg to establish cooperating agency status agreements. 

Additionally, Tonto National Forest and Prescott National Forest are working together to develop a joint 

MOU. A cooperating agency status agreement template has been sent to some agencies that have not yet 

replied.

Agencies were given the opportunity to comment as part of the scoping process. On December 19, 2002, 

a meeting was held in Phoenix to review the planning process and answer questions of agencies. 

Representatives from a total of 14 coordinating agencies were present. All agencies were encouraged to 

provide written comments by the December 30, 2002 deadline. The concerns of responding agencies 

were then entered into the administrative record and incorporated into the scoping report.

Tribal Consultations

The PD sent letters on May 10, 2002, to initiate the tribal consultation process with tribes who have oral 

traditions or cultural concerns relating to the planning areas, or who are documented to have occupied or 

used them during historic times. These tribes include: the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the YavapaiPrescott Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Indian Community (Camp Verde), the Hopi Tribe, the Gila River 

Indian Community, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 

the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O‘odham Nation, and the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe. Several 

interactions with tribal members have been made to solicit comments with regards to the BLM‘s planning 

effort. BLM will continue to consult with Indian tribes throughout the planning process.

Collection of Comments

All scoping comments for the two planning areas were received or postmarked by November 15, 2002. 

BLM received 364 comments recorded from the public meetings and more than 900 written submissions 

of comments containing a total of 2,712 individual written comments. Of the total 3,076 comments 

received throughout the scoping process, 38% came in the form of completed planning worksheets, 15% 

as letters, 12% as oral comments recorded on meeting flip charts, 20% as emails, and 15% that were 
Appendix B

956

recorded as ―other.‖ The ―other‖ category included signed petitions as well as formatted template letters 

from organized stakeholder groups. 

Results of Comments

All comments received for this scoping effort were assigned, based on content, to one of 12 designated 

issue categories. Comments were further divided into various sub-issues within each category. All 

comments were read, evaluated, and manually entered into an analytic database. Figures ES-1 and ES-2 

below depict the most frequently mentioned issues for each planning area. 

38.5%

36.2%

6.2% 5.7% 5.3%

2.2% 1.9% 1.4% 1.4% 0.9% 0.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Lands and Realty

Recreation and Public Access

Visual Resource Management

Rangeland Management

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Wilderness and Special Areas

Mineral Rights

Wildlife and Fisheries Management

Hazardous Materials / Solid Waste

Fire Management

Soils, Water, and Air

Figure ES-1. Public Response by Issue – Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

38.3%

15.0%

11.9%

10.7% 10.1%

6.4%

2.9% 1.9% 1.5% 1.0%

0.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Recreation and Public Access

Wilderness and Special Areas

Lands and Realty

Rangeland Management

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Visual Resource Management

Fire Management

Wildlife and Fisheries Management

Mineral Rights

Hazardous Materials / Solid Waste

Soils, Water, and Air
Appendix B

957

Figure ES-2. Public Response by Issue – Agua Fria National Monument Planning Area

In an effort to relate the analysis and discussion of issues to the community level, the planning areas were 

divided into six community areas: Phoenix, Buckeye, Wickenburg–Yarnell–Castle Hot Springs, 

Prescott–Prescott Valley–Chino Valley, Black Canyon City–New River, and Dewey–Humboldt–Spring 

Valley. 

Analysis by specific community area of the comments received led to identification and ranking of the 

issues of primary concern for each area. These results are presented in tabular form in the scoping report.

Issues Considered but Not Further Addressed

As noted under ―Results of Comments‖ above, all comments received for this scoping effort were 

assigned, based on content, to one of 12 issue categories. Comments were further divided into various 

sub-issues within each category. After lengthy consideration, BLM then assigned each sub-issue to a 

specific planning classification as follows: 

A—will be addressed in the current Resource Management Plan,

B—will be resolved through policy or administrative actions,

C-is already being addressed or will be addressed independent of the current planning 

effort, or

D—determined to be beyond the scope of current planning.

Table B-1 lists each sub-issue that was assigned to planning classifications B, C, or D. 

Table B-1 - Scoping. Classification of Issues Considered but Not Further Addressed

Issue 

Sub-Issue

Planning 

Classification 

B

Planning 

Classification C

Planning 

Classification 

D

General 

Recreation

Designated open 

space and trails 

should be 

marked/posted as 

such

General 

Recreation

Establish 

educational 

programs for all 

users of public 

lands

General 

Recreation

Trails should be 

better maintained 

to encourage 

users to stay on 
Appendix B

958

Issue 

Sub-Issue

Planning 

Classification 

B

Planning 

Classification C

Planning 

Classification 

D

trails

Law 

Enforcement

Increase law 

enforcement 

efforts

Law 

Enforcement

Increase 

preventative 

measures for 

vandalism

Off-Highway 

Vehicle

Use volunteer 

help from OHVaffiliated groups

Off-Highway 

Vehicle

Establish rules 

(and enforce 

where 

appropriate) for 

use of OHVs

Grazing Evaluate grazing 

impacts

Grazing Maintain waters 

for livestock

Grazing Reduce 

grazing fees

Cultural 

Resources

Increase 

protection of 

existing sites and 

cultural artifacts

Cultural 

Resources

Conduct cultural 

resource 

inventories

Cultural 

Resources

Remedy 

archeological 

looting

Cultural 

Resources

Establish/increase 

programs to 

educate public on 

cultural resource 

issues

Wilderness 

Characteristics

Expand 

wilderness 

designations

Wilderness Expand Agua 
Appendix B

959

Issue 

Sub-Issue

Planning 

Classification 

B

Planning 

Classification C

Planning 

Classification 

D

Characteristics Fria to 

include New 

River and 

Tonto

National 

Forest (A/F)

Wilderness 

Characteristics

Reduce 

amount of 

wilderness 

designation

Wild and 

Scenic Rivers

Manage Agua Fria 

River as Wild and 

Scenic (A/F)

General 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Management

Maintain waters 

for wildlife

Hazardous 

Materials/Solid 

Waste

Increase 

preventative 

measures for 

litter/dumping

Fire 

Management

Debris and brush 

clearing programs 

need to be 

expanded

Land Tenure Stop urban 

sprawl/No 

new 

development 

(A/F)

Land Tenure Restrict 

development 

to prevent 

depletion of 

groundwater 

(A/F)

Land Tenure Adjacent 

landowners 

should be 

better 
Appendix B

960

Issue 

Sub-Issue

Planning 

Classification 

B

Planning 

Classification C

Planning 

Classification 

D

informed by 

BLM of 

pending 

changes

Minerals Expand mining 

activities (A/F)

Minerals Continue existing 

mining leases 

(A/F)

Tabulations of Comments Received

Additional Tables B-2 and B-3, show the numeric distributions of comments received for the BradshawHarquahala and Agua Fria National Monument planning areas, respectively. Comment tabulations are 

grouped by issue and sub-issue category.

Tabulation of Comments Received

Table B-2 - Scoping. Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

Tabulation of Comments Received

Tables 2 and 3, below, show the numeric distributions of comments received for the BradshawHarquahala and Agua Fria National Monument planning areas, respectively. Comment tabulations are 

grouped by issue and sub-issue category.

Table 2. Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

Issue Sub-Issue/Comment Total 

Count

Land Tenure Remove land from the disposal list 496

Stop urban sprawl/No new development 133

Restrict development to prevent depletion 

of groundwater

62

Lands should be managed to preserve 

cultural and biological resources

38

General Recreation Allow for recreational use 62

Designated open space and trails should 

be marked/posted as such

17

Establish educational programs for all 

users of public lands

17
Appendix B

961

Issue Sub-Issue/Comment Total 

Count

Develop multiple use areas 13

Trails should be better maintained to 

encourage users to stay on trails

12

Off-Highway Vehicles Maintain and allow OHV usage on existing 

trails

66

Restrict and limit OHV usage on BLMmanaged lands52

Establish (or enforce where appropriate) 

rules for use of OHVs

44

Establish educational program for OHV 

users

38

Use volunteer help from OHV-affiliated 

groups

32

Transportation 

Network 

Maintain public access 72

Designations should also be made for 

primitive areas & motorized areas

49

Close and rehabilitate all vehicle routes 

that threaten cultural and biological 

resources

27

Create environmentally sensitive 

transportation system

21

Allow public access for non-motorized

modes only

16

Law Enforcement Increase law enforcement efforts 40

Increase preventative measures for 

vandalism

10

Visual Resource 

Management 

Land should be preserved and remain 

untouched

85

Preserve natural beauty 34

Grazing Continue leases for grazing 35

Limit grazing 28

Evaluate grazing impacts 27

Riparian Resources Restrict access by livestock 12

Maintain waters for livestock 3

Protect the instream flow of the Agua Fria 

River

4

Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources 

Increase protection of existing sites and 

cultural artifacts

78

Prevent grazing in areas having 

significant cultural resources

7

Conduct cultural resource inventories 5

Remedy archeological looting 5

Allow only limited access to existing 

sites, such as through guided tours

4

Wilderness Study 

Areas 

Expand wilderness designations 28

Conduct wilderness inventories 8

Reduce amount of wilderness designation 2

Mineral Reduce and limit mining activities 17

Continue existing mining leases 14
Appendix B

962

Issue Sub-Issue/Comment Total 

Count

Expand mining activities 5

General Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

General Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Preserve habitat for birdwatching/wildlife 

viewing

18

Maintain waters for wildlife 7

Reintroduce native fish species to aquatic 

systems in the area

2

Hazardous Materials / 

Solid Waste 

Increase preventative measures for 

litter/dumping

26

Fire Management Return natural fire cycles 9

Debris and brush clearing programs need 

to be expanded

5

Return natural fire regime to mesa tops 3

Soils, Water, and Air Conduct hydrological studies of 

watershed

3

Restrict access to surface water from 

OHV users

2

Restrict access to surface water from 

miners

1

Tabulation of Comments Received

Table B-3 - Scoping. Agua Fria National Monument

Table 3. Agua Fria National Monument

Issue Sub-Issue/Comment Total 

Count

General Recreation Allow for recreational use 23

Establish educational programs for all 

users of public lands

17

Restrict shooting 11

Trails should be better maintained to 

encourage users to stay on trails

11

Build visitor center 9

Joint BLM/community land stewardship 

programs should be enacted

8

Off-Highway Vehicles Restrict and limit use 68

Establish rules (and enforce where 

appropriate) for use of OHVs

35

Establish educational program for OHV 

users

35

Maintain and allow usage on existing 

trails

32

Develop additional trails 28

Transportation Network Create environmentally sensitive 

transportation system

76

Close and rehabilitate all vehicle routes 

that threaten cultural and biological 

56
Appendix B

963

Issue Sub-Issue/Comment Total 

Count

resources

Designations should also be made for 

primitive areas & motorized areas

34

Maintain public access 29

Limit access to discourage extensive 

use

27

Allow public access for non-motorized

modes only

20

Law Enforcement Increase law enforcement efforts 34

Increase preventative measures for 

vandalism

7

Wilderness Study Areas Expand wilderness designations 99

Expand Agua Fria to include New River 

and Tonto National Forest

41

Conduct wilderness inventories 22

ACECs Agua Fria River should be designated 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC)

4

Wild and Scenic Rivers Manage Agua Fria River as Wild & Scenic 90

Land Tenure Stop urban sprawl/No new development 85

Lands should be managed to preserve 

cultural and biological resources

55

Restrict development to prevent 

depletion of groundwater

19

Adjacent landowners should be better 

informed by BLM of pending changes

5

Grazing Evaluate grazing impacts 44

Limit grazing 39

Continue leases for grazing 16

Reduce grazing fees 1

Riparian Resources Protect the instream flow of the Agua 

Fria River

55

Restrict access by livestock 27

Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources 

Increase protection of existing sites and 

cultural artifacts

105

Prevent grazing in areas having 

significant cultural resources

22

Conduct cultural resource inventories 14

Allow only limited access to existing 

sites, such as through guided tours

12

Establish/increase programs to educate 

public on cultural resource issues

7

Visual Resource 

Management 

Land should be preserved and remain 

untouched

86

Preserve natural beauty 24

Fire Management Return natural fire regime to mesa tops 27

Return natural fire cycles 21

Debris and brush clearing programs need 

to be expanded

2
Appendix B

964

Issue Sub-Issue/Comment Total 

Count

General Wildlife and 

Fisheries Management 

Preserve habitat for birdwatching/wildlife 

viewing

16

Maintain waters for wildlife 14

Reintroduce native fish species to 

aquatic systems in the area

3

Mineral Rights Reduce and limit mining activities 17

Continue existing mining leases 4

Expand mining activities 4

Hazardous Materials / 

Solid Waste 

Increase preventative measures for 

litter/dumping

17

Soils, Water, and Air Conduct hydrological studies of 

watershed

2

Restrict access to surface water from 

miners

1

Restrict access to surface water from 

OHV users

1
Appendix C

965

Appendix C – Applicable Laws, 

Regulations, Policies and Planning 

Criteria 

When considering the affected environment, physical, biological, economic, and social environmental 

factors must be considered. In addition to NEPA there are other environmental laws as well as Executive 

Orders (EOs) to be considered when preparing EAs and EISs. These laws are summarized below. 

Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and Amendments of 1977 and 

1990

The CAA recognizes that increases in air pollution result in danger to public health and welfare. To 

protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources, the CAA authorizes the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to set six National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) which regulate 

carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter pollution 

emissions. The CAA seeks to reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants at their source, and designates 

this responsibility to State and local governments. States are directed to utilize financial and technical 

assistance as well as leadership from the Federal government to develop implementation plans to achieve 

NAAQS. Geographic areas are officially designated by the EPA as being in attainment or nonattainment 

to pollutants in relation to their compliance with NAAQS. Geographic regions established for air quality 

planning purposes are designated as Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR). Pollutant concentration levels 

are measured at designated monitoring stations within the AQCR. An area is designated as unclassifiable 

where insufficient monitoring data exists. Section 309 of the CAA authorizes the EPA to review and 

comment on impact statements prepared by other agencies. 

An agency should consider what effect an action may have on NAAQS due to short-term increases in air 

pollution during construction as well as long-term increases resulting from changes in traffic patterns. 

For actions in attainment areas, a Federal agency may also be subject to EPA's Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) regulations. These regulations apply to new major stationary sources and 

modifications to such sources. Although few agency facilities will actually emit pollutants, increases in 

pollution can result from a change in traffic patterns or volume. Section 118 of the CAA waives Federal 

immunity from complying with the CAA and states all Federal agencies will comply with all Federal and 

State approved requirements. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977

The CWA, a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, is administered by the 

EPA and sets the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into U.S. waters. The CWA 

requires the EPA to establish water quality standards for specified contaminants in surface waters and 
Appendix C

966

forbids the discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters without a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NPDES permits are issued by EPA or the appropriate 

State if it has assumed responsibility. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a Federal program to regulate 

the discharge of dredged and fills material into waters of the United States. Section 404 permits are issued 

by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Waters of the United States include interstate and 

intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which are used for commerce, recreation, industry, sources 

of fish, and other purposes. The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Each agency should consider the impact on water quality from 

actions such as the discharge of dredge or fill material into U.S. waters from construction, or the 

discharge of pollutants as a result of facility occupation. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)

CERCLA authorizes the EPA to respond to spills and other releases of hazardous substances to the 

environment, and authorizes the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. 

CERCLA also provides a Federal "Superfund" to respond to emergencies immediately. Although the 

"Superfund" provides funds for clean up of sites where potentially responsible parties (PRPs) cannot be 

identified, the EPA is authorized to recover funds through damages collected from responsible parties. 

This funding process places the economic burden for cleanup on polluters. SARA mandates strong 

cleanup standards, and authorizes the EPA to use a variety of incentives to encourage settlements. Title III 

of SARA authorizes the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), which 

requires facility operators with "hazardous substances" or "extremely hazardous substances" to prepare 

comprehensive emergency plans and to report accidental releases. EO 12856, "Federal Compliance with 

Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements," requires Federal agencies to comply with 

the provisions EPCRA. If a Federal agency acquires a contaminated site it can be held liable for clean up 

as the property owner/operator. A Federal agency can also incur liability if it leases a property, as the 

courts have found lessees liable as "owners." However, if the agency exercises due diligence by 

conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, it may claim the "innocent purchaser" defense 

under CERCLA. According to Title 42 United States Code (USC) 9601(35), the current owner/operator 

must show it undertook "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property 

consistent with good commercial or customary practice" before buying the property to use this defense. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976

RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, authorizes the EPA to provide for "cradle-tograve" management of hazardous waste, and sets a framework for the management of non-hazardous 

municipal solid waste. Under RCRA, hazardous waste is controlled from generation to disposal through 

tracking and permitting systems, and restrictions and controls on the placement of waste on or into the 

land. Under RCRA, a waste is defined as hazardous if it is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic or listed by 

the EPA as being hazardous. With the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), Congress 

targeted stricter standards for waste disposal and encouraged pollution prevention by prohibiting the land 

disposal of particular wastes. The HSWA amendments strengthen control of both hazardous and 

nonhazardous waste and emphasize the prevention of pollution of groundwater. 
Appendix C

967

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974

The SDWA establishes a Federal program to monitor and increase the safety of all commercially and 

publicly supplied drinking water. Congress amended the SDWA in 1986, mandating dramatic changes in 

nationwide safeguards for drinking water and establishing new Federal enforcement responsibility on the 

part of the EPA. The 1986 amendments to the SDWA require the EPA to establish Maximum 

Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and Best Available 

Technology (BAT) treatment techniques for organic, inorganic, radioactive, and microbial contaminants, 

and turbidity. MCLGs are maximum concentrations below which no negative human health effects are 

known to exist. The 1996 amendments set current Federal MCLs, MCLGs, and BATs for organic, 

inorganic, microbiological, and radiological contaminants in public drinking water supplies. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976

FLPMA and the regulations contained in 43 CFR Part 1600 govern the Bureau of Land Management 

planning process. Land Use Plans ensure that public lands are managed in accordance with the intent of 

Congress as stated in FLPMA, under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. As required by 

FLPMA, the public lands must be managed in a manner that protects the quality of scientific, scenic, 

historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, 

where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition, that will 

provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor 

recreation and human occupancy and use by encouraging collaboration and public participation 

throughout the planning process. In addition, the public lands must be managed in a manner that 

recognizes the Nation‘s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public 

lands.

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended and supplemented 

The Taylor Grazing Act was the Federal government‘s first effort to regulate grazing on federal public 

lands. The act established grazing districts of vacant, unappropriated and unreserved land from any parts 

of the public domain, excluding Alaska, which are not national forests, parks, and monuments, Indian 

reservations, railroad grant lands, or revested Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands, and which are valuable 

chiefly for grazing and raising forage crops. Residents and stock owners pay an annual fee to obtain a 

grazing permit which is used to manage livestock grazing in established districts. Grazing Administration 

Regulations (43 CFR 4100) provide for the development of state Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management. The Standards and Guidelines are approved through Bureau of 

Land Management planning and NEPA processes.

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act was instituted to improve the conditions on public rangelands. 

Rangelands are defined as lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land 

Management or the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service in 16 contiguous western states, 

including Arizona, on which there is domestic livestock grazing or which the appropriate Secretary determines 

may be suitable for domestic livestock grazing. Rangeland quality is determined by soil quality, forage values, 

wildlife habitat, watershed and plant communities, the current state of vegetation in a site in relation to its 

potential, and the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of vegetation in a plant 
Appendix C

968

community resemble the desired plant community. The act requires a national rangelands inventory and 

consistent federal management policies. In addition, the act provides funding for range improvement projects.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972

The CZMA is concerned with the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the 

Nation's coastal zone. The coastal zone refers to the coastal waters and the adjacent shorelines including 

islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches, and includes the Great Lakes. 

The CZMA declares a National policy to preserve, protect and develop, and where possible restore or 

enhance the resources of the Nation's coastal zone. The CZMA encourages states to exercise their full 

authority over the coastal zone, through the development of land and water use programs in cooperation 

with Federal and local governments. States may apply for grants to help develop and implement 

management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone. 

Development projects affecting land or water use or natural resources of a coastal zone, must ensure the 

project is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the state's coastal zone management program. 

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976

Title I of the Toxic Substance Control Act established requirements and authorities to identify and control 

toxic chemical hazards to human health and the environment. TSCA authorized the EPA to gather 

information on chemical risks, require companies to test chemicals for toxic effects, and regulate 

chemicals with unreasonable risk. TSCA also singled out polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs) for 

regulation and as a result are being phased out. TSCA and its regulations govern the manufacture, 

processing, distribution, use, marking, storage, disposal, clean-up, and release reporting requirements for 

numerous chemicals like PCBs. PCBs are persistent when released into the environment and accumulate 

in the tissues of living organisms. They have been shown to cause adverse health effects on laboratory 

animals and may cause adverse health effects in humans. TSCA Title II provides statutory framework for 

"Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response," which applies only to schools. TSCA Title III, "Indoor Radon 

Abatement," states indoor air in buildings of the United States should be as free of radon as the outside 

ambient air. Federal agencies are required to conduct studies on the extent of radon contamination in 

buildings they own. TSCA Title IV, "Lead Exposure Reduction," directs Federal agencies to "conduct a 

comprehensive program to promote safe, effective, and affordable monitoring, detection, and abatement 

of lead-based paint and other lead exposure hazards." Further, any Federal agency having jurisdiction 

over a property or facility must comply with all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements 

concerning lead-based paint. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968

By recognizing the remarkable values of specific rivers of the Nation, the WSRA provides for a wild and 

scenic river system. These selected rivers and their immediate environment are preserved in a freeflowing condition, without dams or other construction. The policy not only protects the water quality of 

the selected rivers but also provides for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Any river in a 

free-flowing condition is eligible for inclusion, and can be authorized as such by an Act of Congress, an 

act of State legislature, or by the Secretary of Interior upon the recommendation of the Governor of the 

State(s) through which the river flows.
Appendix C

969

EO 11988, "Floodplain Management," May 24, 1977

EO 11988 directs agencies to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development 

in floodplains. An agency may locate a facility in a floodplain if the head of the agency finds there is no 

practicable alternative. If it is found there is no practicable alternative, the agency must minimize potential 

harm to the floodplain, and circulate a notice explaining why the action is to be located in the floodplain 

prior to taking action. Finally, new construction in a floodplain must apply accepted floodproofing and flood 

protection to include elevating structures above the base flood level rather than filling in land. 

EO 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," May 24, 1977

 

EO 11990 directs agencies to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development 

in wetlands. Federal agencies are to avoid new construction in wetlands, unless the agency finds there is 

no practicable alternative to construction in the wetland, and the proposed construction incorporates all 

possible measures to limit harm to the wetland. Agencies should use economic and environmental data, 

agency mission statements, and any other pertinent information when deciding whether or not to build in 

wetlands. EO 11990 directs each agency to provide for early public review of plans for construction in 

wetlands. 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990

The PPA encourages manufacturers to avoid the generation of pollution by modifying equipment and 

processes, redesigning products, substituting raw materials, and making improvements in management 

techniques, training, and inventory control. EO 12856, "Federal Compliance with Right-to Know Laws 

and Pollution Prevention Requirements," requires Federal agencies to comply with the provisions of the 

PPA, and also requires Federal agencies to ensure all necessary actions are taken to prevent pollution. In 

addition, in Federal Register Volume 58 Number 18 (January 29, 1993), the Council on Environmental 

Quality provides guidance to Federal agencies on how to "incorporate pollution prevention principles, 

techniques, and mechanisms into their planning and decision making processes and to evaluate and report 

those efforts, as appropriate, in documents pursuant to NEPA." 

Biological Factors

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973

The ESA establishes a Federal program to conserve, protect and restore threatened and endangered plants 

and animals and their habitats. The ESA specifically charges Federal agencies with the responsibility of 

using their authority to conserve threatened and endangered species. All Federal agencies must insure any 

action they authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an 

endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction of critical habitat for these species, unless the 

agency has been granted an exemption. The Secretary of the Interior, using the best available scientific 

data, determines which species are officially endangered or threatened, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) maintains the list. A list of Federal endangered species may be obtained from the 

Endangered Species Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (703-358-2171). States may also have their 
Appendix C

970

own lists of threatened and endangered species which may be obtained by calling the appropriate State 

Fish and Wildlife office. Some species, such as the bald eagle, also have laws specifically for their 

protection (e.g., Bald Eagle Protection Act). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, amended in 1936, 1960, 

1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986, and 1989

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements treaties and conventions between the United States, Canada, 

Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Unless otherwise 

permitted by regulations, the Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, 

capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, 

imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or 

not. The Act also make it unlawful to ship, transport or carry from one state, territory or district to 

another, or through a foreign country, any bird, part, nest or egg that was captured, killed, taken, shipped, 

transported or carried contrary to the laws from where it was obtained; and import from Canada any bird, 

part, nest or egg obtained contrary to the laws of the province from which it was obtained. The U.S. 

Department of the Interior has authority to arrest, with or without a warrant, a person violating the Act.

EO 13186, “Conservation of Migratory Birds”, January 10, 

2001

EO 13186 creates a more comprehensive strategy for the conservation of migratory birds by the Federal 

Government. The Order provides a specific framework for the Federal government‘s compliance with its 

treaty obligations to Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Japan. The Order provides broad guidelines on 

conservation responsibilities and requires the development of more detailed guidance in Memoranda of 

Understanding (MOU) within 2 years of its implementation. The Order will be coordinated and 

implemented by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The MOU will outline how Federal agencies will promote 

conservation of migratory birds. The Order will requires the support of various conservation planning 

efforts already in progress; incorporation of bird conservation considerations into agency planning, 

including NEPA analyses; and reporting annually on the level of take of migratory birds.

EO 11514, "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental 

Quality," March 5, 1970

EO 11514 states the President, with assistance from the CEQ, will lead a national effort to provide 

leadership in protecting and enhancing the environment for the purpose of sustaining and enriching 

human life. Federal agencies are directed to meet national environmental goals through their policies, 

programs, and plans. Agencies should also continually monitor and evaluate their activities to protect and 

enhance the quality of the environment. Consistent with NEPA, agencies are directed to share information 

about existing or potential environmental problems with all interested parties, including the public, in 

order to obtain their views.
Appendix C

971

Economic and Social Factors

Environmental Quality Improvement Act (EQIA) of 1970

The EQIA ensures each Federal agency conducting or supporting public works activities affecting the 

environment implements policies established under existing law. The EQIA also created the Office 

Environmental Quality to provide professional and administrative staff for the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ). The Director of the Office of Environmental Quality assists and advises the President on 

Federal policies and programs affecting environmental quality. The Office of Environmental Quality 

reviews the adequacy of existing environmental monitoring and predicting systems, and assists Federal 

agencies in appraising the effectiveness of existing and proposed facilities which affect environmental 

quality.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

The NHPA sets forth national policy to identify and preserve properties of state, local, and national 

significance. The act establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), State Historic 

Preservation Officers, and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Council advises the 

President, Congress and Federal agencies on historic preservation issues. Section 106 of the act directs 

Federal agencies to take into account effects of their undertakings (actions and authorizations) on 

properties included in or eligible for NRHP. Section 110 sets inventory, nomination, protection and 

preservation responsibilities for federally owned cultural properties. Section 106 of the act is 

implemented by regulations of the Council, 36 CFR Part 800. The Bureau of Land Management in 

Arizona complies with Section 106 according to a national Programmatic Agreement dated March 26, 

1997, supplemented by a Protocol between the BLM Arizona State Director and the Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Officer. 

The agency should coordinate studies and documents prepared under Section 106 with NEPA where 

appropriate. However, NEPA and NHPA are separate statutes and compliance with one does not 

constitute compliance with the other. For example, actions which qualify for a categorical exclusion under 

NEPA may still require Section 106 review under NHPA. It is the responsibility of the agency official to 

identify properties in the area of potential effects, and whether they are included or eligible for inclusion 

in the National Register of Historic Places. Section 110 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to 

identify, evaluate, and nominate historic property under agency control to the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979

ARPA protects archaeological resources on public and Indian lands. It provides felony-level penalties for 

the unauthorized excavation, removal, damage, alteration or defacement of any archaeological resource, 

defined as material remains of past human life or activities which are at least 100 years old. Before 

archaeological resources are excavated or removed from public lands, the Federal land manager must issue a 

permit detailing the time, scope, location and specific purpose of the proposed work. ARPA also fosters the 

exchange of information about archaeological resources between governmental agencies, the professional 

archaeological community, and private individuals. ARPA is implemented by regulations found in 43 CFR 

Part 7.
Appendix C

972

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and 

Amendments of 1994

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 recognizes that freedom of religion for all people is 

an inherent right, and traditional American Indian religions are an indispensable and irreplaceable part of 

Indian life. It also recognized the lack of Federal policy on this issue and made it the policy of the United 

States to protect and preserve the inherent right of religious freedom for Native Americans. The 1994 

Amendments provide clear legal protection for the religious use of peyote cactus as a religious sacrament. 

Federal agencies are responsible for evaluating their actions and policies to determine if changes should 

be made to protect and preserve the religious cultural rights and practices of Native Americans. These 

evaluations must be made in consultation with native traditional religious leaders. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) of 1990

NAGPRA establishes rights of Indian tribes to claim ownership of certain ―cultural items‖, defined as 

Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony, held or 

controlled by Federal agencies. Cultural items discovered on Federal or tribal lands are, in order of primacy, 

the property of lineal descendants, if these can be determined, the tribe owning the land where the items 

were discovered, of the tribe with the closest cultural affiliation with the items. Discoveries of cultural items 

on Federal or tribal land must be reported to the appropriate Indian tribe and the Federal agency with 

jurisdiction over the land. If the discovery is made as a result of a land use, activity in the area must stop 

and the items must be protected pending the outcome of consultation with the affiliated tribe.

EO 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment," May 13, 1971

EO 11593 directs the Federal Government to provide leadership in the preservation, restoration, and 

maintenance of the historic and cultural environment. Federal agencies are required to locate and evaluate 

all Federal sites under their jurisdiction or control which may qualify for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places. Agencies must allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comment on 

the alteration, demolition, sale, or transfer of property which is likely to meet the criteria for listing as 

determined by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Agencies must also initiate procedures to maintain federally owned sites listed on the National Register. 

EO 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in MinorityPopulations and Low-Income 

Populations," February 11, 1994

EO 12898 directs Federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission. 

Agencies must identify and address adverse human health and/or environmental effects its activities have 

on minority and low-income populations, and develop agency-wide environmental justice strategies. The 

strategy must list "programs, policies, planning and public participation processes, enforcement, and/or 

rulemakings related to human health or the environment that should be revised to promote enforcement of 
Appendix C

973

all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority populations and low-income populations, 

ensure greater public participation, improve research and data collection relating to the health of and 

environment of minority populations and low-income populations, and identify differential patterns of 

consumption of natural resources among minority populations and low-income populations." A copy of 

the strategy and progress reports must be provided to the Federal Working Group on Environmental 

Justice. Responsibility for compliance with this EO lies with each Federal agency. 

EO 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites”, May 24, 1996

EO 13007 provides that agencies managing Federal lands, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and 

not inconsistent with agency functions, shall accommodate Indian religious practitioners‘ access to and 

ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites, shall avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sites, 

and shall maintain the confidentiality of such sites. Federal agencies are responsible for informing tribes 

of proposed actions that could restrict future access to or ceremonial use of, or adversely affect the 

physical integrity of, sacred sites.

EO 13287, “Preserve America”, March 3, 2003

EO 13287 orders the Federal Government to take a leadership role in protection, enhancement, and 

contemporary use of historic properties owned by the Federal Government, and promote 

intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for preservation and use of historic properties. The order 

established new accountability for agencies with regard to inventories and stewardship.

Planning Criteria

During preparation of the plan, the BLM with input from the public develops planning criteria that serves 

to:

constrain and guide the development of the Plan, 

determine how the planning team approaches the development of Alternatives, and 

determine how the planning team approaches selection of the Proposed Alternative. 

Additional planning criteria can be added at any point in the planning process. The following are the 

Draft Planning Criteria as of the printing of this document.

1. The Plans will be completed in compliance with the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, 

The Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and all other relevant 

Federal laws and executive orders (including wilderness legislation), and management policies of 

the BLM. The National Monument Plan will meet the requirements of the Agua Fria National 

Monument Proclamation to protect the objects of geological, paleontological, archaeological, 

historic, and biological value within the monument. 

2. Fire Management prescriptions will be consistent with the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Policy and 

the National Fire Plan. 

3. The planning team will work collaboratively with the State of Arizona, Maricopa and Yavapai 

Counties, tribal governments, municipal governments, other Federal agencies; and all other 

interested groups, agencies and individuals. 
Appendix C

974

4. The National Monument Plan will establish the guidance upon which the BLM will manage the 

Agua Fria National Monument. BLM will rely on the Bradshaw Foothills Resource Management 

Plan Amendment Plan for management guidance for BLM‘s lands not covered by the Lower Gila 

Resource Management Plan Amendment. The Bradshaw Foothills and Agua Fria National 

Monument Resource Management Plans will replace and supersede all other BLM land use plans 

for the lands covered by them. 

5. The National Monument Plan will determine what quantity of water will be needed for 

Monument purposes and will work within Arizona appropriative procedures to acquire those 

water rights. 

6. Where planning decisions have previously been made that still apply, those decisions will be 

carried forward into these Plans. 

7. The planning process will include an Environmental Impact Statement which will comply with 

the National Environmental Policy Act standards. Two Records of Decision will be issued, one 

for the Agua Fria National Monument and one for the lands in the Bradshaw Harquahala planning 

area. 

8. Due to the desire to maintain the existing natural and cultural landscapes of the Agua Fria 

National Monument, any visitor facilities will be located near the Monument boundary or in 

neighboring communities. Facilities may be located within the Monument, but they will be 

placed in an unobtrusive location near the Monument boundary. 

9. The Plans will set forth a framework for managing recreational activities in order to maintain 

existing natural landscapes and to provide for the enjoyment and safety of the visiting public. 

10. The management of grazing is regulated by laws and regulations other than the Monument 

Proclamation. The Plans will incorporate the statewide standards and guidelines established by 

the Arizona Bureau of Land Management State Director and approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior. It will lay out a strategy for ensuring that proper grazing practices are followed while 

preserving habitats for sensitive plant and wildlife species. Livestock Grazing is permitted, 

pursuant to the terms and conditions of existing permits and leases. Appropriate best 

management practices will be followed to protect rangeland resources, and where necessary, to 

mitigate any conflicts with other uses and values. Administrative actions to assure compliance 

with existing permit/lease requirements, to modify permits and leases, to monitor and supervise 

grazing use, and to remedy unauthorized grazing use will continue. 

11. Native American tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy and tribal 

concerns will be given due consideration. The planning process will include the consideration of 

any impacts on Indian trust assets. 

12. Coordination with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be conducted 

throughout the Plan. 

13. The Plans will identify opportunities for using cultural properties for scientific, educational, 

recreational, or experimental purposes. 

14. The lifestyles of area residents, including activities of grazing, hunting, and back country 

motorized use and recreation, will be recognized in the Plan. 

15. The Agua Fria National Monument Plan will not address monument boundary adjustments or 

proposals to change the proclamation. 

16. The Plans will recognize the State's authority to manage wildlife, including hunting and fishing, 

within the planning area in accordance with the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 
Appendix C

975

17. The Plans will address transportation, route management, and access; and identify which 

routes/roads should remain open to accommodate resource users, recreationist, protection of 

resource values and administrative needs. 

18. The existing BLM wilderness inventory and vehicle route inventory will provide a basis for 

consideration of any new wilderness proposals. 

19. Lands which will be open to mineral leasing will be identified in the Plan. Lands within the Agua 

Fria National Monument are closed to mineral development (subject to valid existing right) by the 

proclamation. Where the plan identifies lands as open to mineral leasing, it will also define any 

constraints to surface use. 

20. Ecological Site Inventory will be conducted consistent with current rangeland management 

policy. 

21. Visual Resource Management classification will be conducted to address the public‘s concerns 

about open space and natural vistas. 

22. The Plans will designate which acquired lands currently not segregated from mining by 

overriding actions (i.e., national monument, wilderness) should be opened to mining location. 

23. The Bradshaw Foothills Plan Amendment will determine if any lands should be closed to 

operations under the Mining Laws. 

24. Consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service will take place throughout the Plan process in 

accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement on Section 7 Programmatic Consultations and 

Coordination among the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

and National Marine Fisheries, August 2000. 

25. Minerals management will be consistent with FLPMA and existing policy and regulation 

including the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Section 102 (a) (12) of FLPMA, the 

National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, and current 

BLM Mineral Resources policy. 

26. National, State, and local policy on management of noxious weeds will be considered in the 

plans. Where possible, management practices that control invasive plant species will be 

emphasized. 

27. Management of the wild burros within the Lake Pleasant Herd Management Area will continue to 

be guided by the existing Herd Management Plan. Appropriate management levels for burros 

were set based on monitoring studies and are within the limits set by the Arizona Rangeland 

Health Standards. Monitoring will continue to assure those standards are maintained. 

28. Sensitive or special resources in planning and designating utility corridors will be avoided. 

29. In February 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued the National Strategy for 

the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets (DHS 2003). This strategy 

summarized the initial assessment of and plans for protection against vulnerabilities to terrorist 

threat. BLM must ensure the designation of utility and transportation corridor locations and the 

planning and maintenance of utilities, railroads, and highways crossing its lands conform to DHS 

directives, policies, and procedures. 

30. In accordance with Executive Order No. 13212, the Energy Project Streamlining Process (signed 

May 18, 2001), Federal energy-related planning must expedite producing, transmitting, or 

conserving energy. 
Appendix D

976

Appendix D - Route Evaluation/Designation Decision Tree Process

 

The route designation process for the Phoenix District is the sum of route and resource inventories, the BLM specialists‘ input, and the public‘s 

input. The process of designating routes is part of a larger effort to use the best management techniques in an ever-changing environment. As the 

population of Arizona grows, management of the land must reflect trends and in some cases, provide guidance to meet desired goals. Designating 

and managing a route system is a key component.

Evaluating routes on the merits of their uses, values, and impacts is a difficult task. The method currently directed by the BLM Arizona State 

Office for evaluating each route is the Route Evaluation/Designation Decision Tree Process. This process uses a flow chart (See below) that 

systematically guides the evaluator through a series of questions that help assess the relationship of routes to sensitive resources and public access 

both individually route by route, as well as collectively or cumulatively as a network. Background data from state and federal agency inventories 

and specialists, as well as the public provides the basis for evaluation. As specified by 43CFR8342.1, this process considers as part of its 

evaluation, impacts to a number of sensitive resources including but not limited to threatened, endangered and sensitive species, and their habitat, 

as well as cultural and historic resources. These impacts are jointly evaluated in the context of providing reasonable commercial and recreational 

public access as provided for by several State and Federal acts. When the questions are answered by taking into account the best information 

available and RMP objectives, a route designation code is established and recorded. Routes are determined to be Open, Closed, or Limited. 

As the evaluation/designation process progresses, specific reasoning on route designation is documented. Mitigation where necessary will be 

incorporated into an adaptive management plan. Route designation is considered an implementation action rather than a RMP decision. Changes 

can be made to the designated route network land use plan, Monument Proclamation, NEPA and FLPMA and 43 CFR 8342.1, and any other laws 

or regulations that may apply.

The process for reviewing inventoried routes, proposing new routes, both motorized and non-motorized and adding routes to route inventory for 

consideration in the route designation process is outlined below in six steps. Public participation will be requested during the following phases of 

the route designation process:

Scoping: 

- The public identifies proposed and missing routes to be analyzed. Route proposals submitted at this time. See (1) below.

-

 Action Alternatives Formulation meetings

 - The public reviews agency proposals based on scoping comments and is invited to participate in a structured data gathering 

 - Session.

 Draft Environment Assessment comment period
Appendix D

977

- Comments will be accepted on the draft plan

All routes, inventoried or proposed, will be integrated and evaluated as follows:

1. Route locations will be mapped or located using accepted Global Positioning 

 System devices and presented to the BLM office for consideration. Locations of route proposals off of existing motorized routes must be 

 located and mapped using non-motorized methods. The route proposal submitted to BLM will include a description of the route including its 

 proposed width, its proposed use(s), and a rationale for its need. 

2. The route location will be analyzed for potential conflicts such as, (but not limited to): wildlife habitats, cultural resources, visual resources,

 other recreation uses, mining claims or leases, grazing facilities, rights-of-way, and proximity to other jurisdictions (such as private land.) A 

 structured process, such as that described above will be used to evaluate and document the known or foreseeable route conditions.

3. If the route has few conflicts identified during the analysis, an on-the-ground review may be initiated. At this stage, the proposed route must be 

flagged and staked on the ground by the public for BLM review. If a route has irresolvable conflicts, it may be removed from further 

consideration.

4. Pending favorable on-the-ground review, a conflict assessment would lead to possible mitigation actions or alternative locations or design.

5. An environmental analysis (EA) would be prepared to determine the environmental affects of the proposed route system and any alternatives

 and mitigation suggested. In the case of new route proposals brought forth during the initial route designation period, all routes will be

 analyzed together in the same EA. 

6. A decision identifying the route system and mitigations will be issued by the authorized officer based on Land Use Plan compliance, resource 

 objectives, and environmental impacts.
Appendix D

978

Benefit

Opportunitie

s

& Outcomes

©Les Weeks 2003

Patent Pending

 

Main Features Include:

1. Logical, standardized, balanced and repeatable approach to route designation

2. . Systematic questions to assess compliance with a variety of pertinent statutory requirements 

including: 

Valid existing rights and other vested rights or permitted uses

Degree of 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 the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) and its charge to balance the 

public’s need/desire for access to Federal lands with resource protection through a philosophy of 

management for “multiple use”. Such consideration includes recognizing the value of providing a 

range of recreational opportunities and treating those opportunities in accordance with FLPMA as a 

resource worthy of protection. 

3. Systematic consideration of access opportunities and resource protection needs on both a narrowly 

focused route by route assessment, as well as a broad-based cumulative assessment of the total 

network’s effect. 

4. Systematic consideration of mitigation and/or limited designation as a means by which to ameliorate 

resource impacts. Designation options include a range from open to closed, and a number of 

intermediate actions as a means by which to balance access needs and resource protection.

5. Systematic recordation of data allowing for future retrieval and review/updating of decision information 

as needed (i.e. “decision pathways” are numerically coded).

6. Systematic ability to assess a route’s final recommended designation status based upon the 

management goals of each individual alternative.
Appendix D

979

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 designation are identified. The patterns of these identified uses and concerns, as well as their trends are also noted. 

Other related issues such as law enforcement, route maintenance and user conflicts are further identified. 

2. The desired future condition and management goals of each proposed alternative are identified and reviewed.

3. Each route is systematically numbered. This both allows for tracking the designation process and enables the public to make comment on specific 

routes. 

4. Each route is then systematically assessed by sequentially answering the questions in the Decision Tree. This is done for each alternative. 

Specifically, the questions are assessed and answered in the context of the regional concerns identified in step #1 and the management goals 

identified in step#2 for each of the alternatives.

5. The determination of 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 designation decision record. 

Close

01

Close 01: A route that is recommended for permanent closure to all use. 

Physical closure includes restoring the travelway to the degree possible 

to blend with surrounding landscape, as well as installation of physical 

barriers and signing at the original departure point, if necessary.

Limit

05

Limit 05: A route that is recommended for limited use by certain parties or 

entities with valid, vested, or implied rights of access, or to certain vehicle 

types, seasons of use, etc.

Mitigate/

Open

05

Mitigate/Open 05: A route that is recommended open for all uses, following 

mitigation action(s) aimed at reducing/eliminating certain estimated 

impacts identified during the route designation process.

O

p

e

n

0

2

Open 02: A route that is recommended open for all uses.

Mitigate/

Limit

09

Mitigate/Limit 09: A route that is recommended for limited use by certain 

parties or entities with valid, vested, or implied rights of access, or to 

certain vehicle types, seasons of use, etc., following mitigation action(s) 

aimed at reducing/eliminating certain estimated impacts identified during 

the route designation process.
Appendix D

980

C. Is the route:

Officially recognized as part of a Federal planning document and is 

subject to maintenance

A regional route that serves more than one planning subregion

A principal means of connectivity within a subregion or

Does the route provide commercial or private property access (e.g. via 

prescriptive or vested rights)?

A. Is the route an officially recognized right-ofway or an officially recognized County or State 

route?

Y

B. Is the continued use of this route likely to 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 Designations (e.g. National Monuments)?

D. Can the impacts to the above sensitive resources be 

mitigated or avoided?

F. Is the continued use of this route likely to 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 Designations (e.g. National Monuments)?

G. Is the continued use of this route likely to 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 

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 mitigated or 

avoided?

J. Can the impacts to the above sensitive resources be mitigated or 

avoided?

I. 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?

K. 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?

Y

N

N

Y N Y N 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, privateproperty and public uses of this route 

be adequately met by another route(s) 

(within this route’s zone of influence) 

that minimizes impacts to the 

sensitive resources identified above 

or that minimizes cumulative effects 

on various other resources?

Y. Can the commercial or privateproperty uses of this route be 

adequately met by another route that 

minimizes impacts to the sensitive 

resources identified above or that 

minimizes cumulative effects on 

various other resources?

Y N

Close

19

Limit

16

Mitigate/

Limit

11

O

p

e

n

1

2

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 (within this route’s 

zone of influence) 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 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

O

p

e

n

0

6

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 (within this route’s 

zone of influence) that 

minimizes impacts to the 

sensitive resources 

identified above or that 

minimizes cumulative 

effects on various other 

resources?

Limit

03

Close

03

Y N

AA. Can the commercial or 

private-property uses of this 

route be adequately met by 

another route that minimizes 

impacts to the sensitive 

resources identified above 

or that minimizes cumulative 

effects on various other 

resources?

Y

N

Y N

O

p

e

n

0

5

Close

04

Limit

04

Limit

18

Close

21

O

p

e

n

1

3

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?

O

p

e

n

0

1

Y N

Limit

06 O

p

e

n

0

7

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) (within this route’s 

zone of influence) that 

minimizes impacts to the 

sensitive resources 

identified above or that 

minimizes cumulative 

effects on various other 

resources?

Y N

EE. Can the commercial or private-property uses of 

this route be adequately met by another route that 

minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources 

identified above or that minimizes cumulative 

effects on various other resources?

Y N

Close

07

Limit

07

Mitigate/

Limit

05

O

p

e

n

0

7

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 (within this route’s 

zone of influence) that 

minimizes impacts to the 

sensitive resources 

identified above or that 

minimizes cumulative 

effects on various other 

resources?

Limit

09

Close

09

Y N

GG. Can the commercial or privateproperty uses of this route be 

adequately met by another route that 

minimizes impacts to the sensitive 

resources identified above or that 

minimizes cumulative effects on 

various other resources?

Y

N

Y N

O

p

e

n

0

8

Close

10

Limit

10

Limit

24

Close

27

O

p

e

n

1

4

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 (within this route’s zone of influence) 

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 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

O

p

e

n

0

9

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 recreational opportunities, 

route network connectivity, 

public safety, or other public 

use access opportunities 

enumerated in agency 

Organic laws?

O

p

e

n

0

2

Y N

Limit

28 O

p

e

n

1

5

T. Does this route contribute 

to recreational opportunities, 

route network connectivity, 

public safety, or other public 

use access opportunities 

enumerated in agency 

Organic laws?

JJ. Can the public uses of 

this route be adequately met 

by another route (within this 

route’s zone of influence) 

that minimizes impacts to 

the sensitive resources 

identified above or that 

minimizes cumulative 

effects on various other 

resources?

Close

13 N

Y

Close

31

N

Limit

13

Close

14

Mitigate/

Open

05

Mitigate/

Limit

09

Y

U. Does this route contribute 

to recreational opportunities, 

route network connectivity, 

public safety, or other public 

use access opportunities 

enumerated in agency 

Organic laws?

KK. Can the public uses of 

this route be adequately met 

by another route (within this 

route’s zone of influence) 

that minimizes impacts to 

the sensitive resources 

identified above or that 

minimizes cumulative 

effects on various other 

resources?

Close

15 N

Y

Close

32

O

p

e

n

1

0

Limit

14

Close

16

Y

Close

17

V. Does this route contribute 

to recreational opportunities, 

route network connectivity, 

public safety, or other public 

use access opportunities 

enumerated in agency 

Organic laws?

LL. Can the public uses of 

this route be adequately met 

by another route (within this 

route’s zone of influence) 

that minimizes cumulative 

effects on various resources 

not specifically identified 

above as sensitive or 

specially protected?

N

Y

Close

33

N

O

p

e

n

1

1

Limit

15

Close

18

Mitigate/

Open

06

Mitigate/

Limit

10

Y

W. Does this route contribute 

to recreational opportunities, 

route network connectivity, 

public safety, or other public 

use access opportunities 

enumerated in agency 

Organic laws?

O

p

e

n

0

3

Y

Limit

29

O

p

e

n

1

6

Close

34

N

©Les Weeks 2003

Patent Pending 

N

©Les Weeks 2003

Patent Pending

Y N

Close

01

Limit

01

Mitigate/

Limit

01

O

p

e

n

0

4

Limit

02

Close

02

Mitigate/

Open

01

Mitigate/

Limit

02
Appendix E

981

Appendix E: Cultural Resources 

Use Categories 

 

EXCERPT FROM BLM MANUAL 8110 

8110 - IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING CULTURAL RESOURCES

.4 Categorizing According to Uses. Categorizing cultural resources according to their potential uses is the 

culmination of the identification process and the bridge to protection and utilization decisions. Use 

categories establish what needs to be protected, and when or how use should be authorized. All cultural 

resources have uses, but not all should be used in the same way. Cultural resources can be allocated to the

various recognized use categories even before they are individually identified. The clear advantage in 

doing this is that it allows Field Office managers to know in advance how to respond to conflicts that 

arise between specific cultural resources and other land uses. Relative to the national Programmatic 

Agreement, categorizing resources to uses provides a mechanism for the Field Office manager and the 

SHPO to confer and concur on how to handle most routine cases of conflict in advance, enabling the Field

Office manager to put decisions into effect in the most appropriate and most timely manner.

.41 Allocations to Use Categories. 

A. Field Office managers shall allocate to appropriate use categories all cultural properties known 

and projected to occur in a plan area. Allocations are made in land use plans (RMP), and may be applied 

both to individual properties and to classes of similar properties. Appropriately qualified staff 

professionals recommend suitable uses for each cultural property or class of properties, considering the 

properties‘ characteristics, condition, setting, location, and accessibility, and especially their perceived 

values and potential uses. A cultural property may be allocated to more than one use category or it may 

pass from one category to another (e.g., from Scientific Use to Public Use, as when an archaeological 

property becomes appropriate for in-place interpretation and conservation for future scientific use, upon 

completion of scientific investigation). During the compliance process for proposed land uses, allocations 

allow Field Office managers to analyze needs and develop appropriate mitigation and treatment options. 

Allocations should be consistent with historic context documents and State Historic Preservation Plans.

B. Allocations shall be reevaluated and revised, as appropriate, when circumstances change or new 

data become available. Conditions and/or criteria for revising allocations must be included in the RMP, or 

else revisions may require a plan amendment. 

C. A Field Office more than 1 year from an RMP start may assign cultural resources to use 

categories through an implementation plan (e.g., integrated or interdisciplinary plan, coordinated resource 

management plan, landscape management plan) that implements any commitment in an existing land use 

plan to manage cultural resources appropriately (even if only a commitment to comply with the National 

Historic Preservation Act; see next to last sentence in A. above). Assignments made in implementation 

plans do not become full allocation decisions until incorporated in an approved RMP.
Appendix E

982

.42

8110 - IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING CULTURAL RESOURCES

.42 Use Categories

A. Scientific Use. This category applies to any cultural property determined to be available for 

consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study at the present time, using currently available 

research techniques. Study includes methods that would result in the property's physical alteration or 

destruction. This category applies almost entirely to prehistoric and historic archaeological properties, 

where the method of use is generally archaeological excavation, controlled surface collection, and/or 

controlled recordation (data recovery). Recommendations to allocate individual properties to this use 

must be based on documentation of the kinds of data the property is thought to contain and the data's 

importance for pursuing specified research topics. Properties in this category need not be conserved in the 

face of a research or data recovery (mitigation) proposal that would make adequate and appropriate use of 

the property's research importance. 

B. Conservation for Future Use. This category is reserved for any unusual cultural property 

which, because of scarcity, a research potential that surpasses the current state of the art, singular historic 

importance, cultural importance, architectural interest, or comparable reasons, is not currently available 

for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study that would result in its physical alteration. 

A cultural property included in this category is deemed worthy of segregation from all other land or 

resource uses, including cultural resource uses, that would threaten the maintenance of its present 

condition or setting, as pertinent, and will remain in this use category until specified provisions are met in 

the future.

C. Traditional Use. This category is to be applied to any cultural resource known to be perceived 

by a specified social and/or cultural group as important in maintaining the cultural identity, heritage, or 

well being of the group. Cultural properties assigned to this category are to be managed in ways that 

recognize the importance ascribed to them and seek to accommodate their continuing traditional use. 

D. Public use. This category may be applied to any cultural property found to be appropriate for 

use as an interpretive exhibit in place, or for related educational and recreational uses by members of the 

general public. The category may also be applied to buildings suitable for continued use or adaptive use, 

for example as staff housing or administrative facilities at a visitor contact or interpretive site, or as 

shelter along a cross-country ski trail.
Appendix E

983

.42E

8110 - IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING CULTURAL RESOURCES

E. Experimental Use. This category may be applied to a cultural property judged well-suited for 

controlled experimental study, to be conducted by BLM or others concerned with the techniques of 

managing cultural properties, which would result in the property's alteration, possibly including loss of 

integrity and destruction of physical elements. Committing cultural properties or the data they contain to 

loss must be justified in terms of specific information that would be gained and how it would aid in the 

management of other cultural properties. Experimental study should aim toward understanding the kinds 

and rates of natural or human-caused deterioration, testing the effectiveness of protection measures, or 

developing new research or interpretation methods and similar kinds of practical management 

information. It should not be applied to cultural properties with strong research potential, traditional 

cultural importance, or good public use potential, if it would significantly diminish those uses.

F. Discharged from Management. This category is assigned to cultural properties that have no 

remaining identifiable use. Most often these are prehistoric and historic archaeological properties, such as 

small surface scatters of artifacts or debris, whose limited research potential is effectively exhausted as 

soon as they have been documented. Also, more complex archaeological properties that have had their 

salient information collected and preserved through mitigation or research may be discharged from 

management, as should cultural properties destroyed by any natural event or human activity. Properties 

discharged from management remain in the inventory, but they are removed from further management 

attention and do not constrain other land uses. Particular classes of unrecorded cultural properties may be 

named and described in advance as dischargeable upon documentation, but specific cultural properties 

must be inspected in the field and recorded before they may be discharged from management.
Appendix F

984

Appendix F: Special Cultural 

Resource Management Areas 

These eight areas, described below from east to west, are defined as Priority Areas for Cultural Resource 

Management and are common to all plan alternatives. These areas contain significant resources that, in 

many cases, are at risk of damage. Management actions within priority areas will be incorporated into 

annual work planning for the Phoenix District cultural heritage program.

Black Mesa/Bumble Bee

This area, west of the Agua Fria National Monument, contains significant prehistoric and historic sites 

including pueblos, rock art, an Archaic artifact scatter, and historic mining and ranching camps. Many of 

the prehistoric sites were used during the period immediately prior to the Perry Mesa Tradition (A.D. 

1250-1450), which represents the major occupational period on the monument. The sites are threatened 

by impacts from looting, livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle use, and recreational activities. 

Galena Gulch

This area, adjacent to State Route 69 near Humboldt, contains an unusual variety of significant prehistoric 

and historic sites including pueblo structures, rock art, mines, cabins, cemeteries, and the remnants of an 

early transmission line. Many of the sites are known to the public and accessible from the highway. 

They are vulnerable to damage associated with recreational activities and nearby development.

Black Canyon Corridor

This area incorporates the proposed route of the Black Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Trail, which 

follows the path of the historic Black Canyon Livestock Driveway and other historic routes. The area 

features a number of significant prehistoric and historic sites, which offer opportunities for interpretive 

development and public education along the recreational trail. As this area receives a high level of 

recreational traffic, the sites also need to be documented and protected. .

Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria

This area in the foothills of the Bradshaw Mountains, directly north of Lake Pleasant, also incorporates a 

segment of the Agua Fria River. The area contains significant sites including prehistoric hilltop 

structures, rock art, and Humbug and other sites associated with historic mining. There are documented 

occurrences of Agave murpheyi, a type of agave that was cultivated in prehistoric times and is frequently 

associated with Hohokam sites. The integrity of these sites is threatened by the high volume of 

recreational traffic associated with the proximity of Lake Pleasant. Some sites have been publicized in 

book, magazine, and newspaper articles. 
Appendix F

985

Wickenburg/Vulture

The area surrounding Wickenburg contains a number of historic sites and roads, associated primarily with 

the history of mining and settlement. The area also incorporates the Vulture source of obsidian, used for 

stone tools and traded widely by prehistoric people. Urban expansion and development, as well as 

recreational and mining activities, represent potential threats to cultural resources. Tourism is a local 

tradition, and residents have expressed an interest in visiting historical sites and incorporating interpreted 

sites into trail systems. 

Weaver/Octave

This area surrounds Rich Hill, one of the most productive gold mining areas in Arizona‘s history. The 

historic settlement of Weaver (AZ N:14:3 (BLM)), other historic sites, roads, mines, and cemeteries offer 

opportunities to interpret selected sites for public use. 

Harcuvar Mountains

This mountain range and surrounding areas contain a variety of significant prehistoric sites, including 

habitation camps, stone tool manufacturing areas, milling areas, rockshelters, and rock art (petroglyphs 

and pictographs). The area is near a major historic transportation route and may contain sites associated

with mining, transportation, commerce, and military activities during the 1800s. The sites are threatened 

by off-highway travel and recreational activities associated with the growth of seasonal retirement 

communities.

Harquahala Mountains 

This mountain range includes the Harquahala Mountain Observatory Historic District, which 

encompasses the Harquahala Smithsonian Observatory, the historic Harquahala Pack Trail, Ellison‘s 

Camp, and associated historical features. The Harquahala Mountains also contain significant prehistoric 

sites including habitation camps, milling areas, and rock art. In 2002, the BLM completed a stabilization 

project at the historic Harquahala Peak Smithsonian Observatory, which was used by solar researchers 

during the 1920s. This historic building is a mountaintop destination for both the historic pack trail and 

the Harquahala Mountain Back Country Byway. The remoteness and wilderness character of the range 

offer some protection for cultural resources, but sites may be vulnerable to impacts from mining and 

recreational activities. 
Appendix G

986

Appendix G – Harquahala Herd 

Area Manageability Analysis 

The Harquahala Herd Area is located approximately 18 miles north and 72 miles west of Phoenix, and is 

59,405 acres in size. The herd area encompasses 150,561 acres of public land (94.5 percent), 8,060 acres 

of Arizona State Lands (5 percent), and 782 acres of private land (0.5 percent).

Portions of three wilderness areas, including the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Area on the north, 

along with Hummingbird Springs and the Big Horn Mountains Wilderness Areas on the south, are located 

within the herd area boundaries. Wilderness acres include 20.7 percent, or 33,151 acres of the herd area.

The area, which was first identified as a herd area in the Draft Lower Gila North Grazing Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) in 1982, was based on inventories conducted in 1976 and 1980, utilizing the 

Lincoln Index Inventory Method. The area was designated as a herd area in the Final Lower Gila North 

Grazing EIS in September 1982. 

In 1999, inventories were jointly conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) utilizing the Simultaneous Double Count Method. The analysis of that data 

indicates a total herd of less than 50 animals. These were found in two separate groups. One group, 

representing approximately two-thirds of the current population, was located on the south side of the 

Harquahala Mountains, and the other one-third was found on the southern end of the Big Horn 

Mountains. The mountainous areas provide a more dependable source of forage, whereas the areas 

between these mountains produce only a limited amount of perennial forage. Burros within this herd area 

are often dependant on forage produced on the privately owned agricultural fields, which are located at 

the west end of the Harquahala Mountains, especially during periods of drought.

Access to natural occurring water is restricted to two sources of dependable water (except during 

drought), they‘re two springs located in Browns Canyon on the south side of the Harquahalas, and 

Humming Bird Springs in the southern portion of the herd area. Both of these areas are critical to native 

wildlife species. A proposal to fence Browns Canyon to protect the riparian area from excessive grazing 

is being considered, and will forwarded as a project as soon as the area has been evaluated via the Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health process. Other water sources in the area are those developed for 

livestock, including wells, troughs and earthen tanks. The wells and troughs are generally located within 

livestock handling facilities, such as corrals and traps that are often closed to facilitate livestock 

management; therefore, not always accessible to wild burros. Also, these wells are only operational 

during periods of active livestock use, and are not a dependable source of water throughout the year. 

Earthen tanks are generally accessible, but only contain water during periods of plentiful precipitation.

Field observations confirm that the burros in this area often range far outside the herd area boundary, 

which indicates the necessity for these animals to seek sustenance (forage and water) in areas other than 

within the designated herd area.

Although existing research regarding minimum population size varies, it is generally accepted that a 

population of less than 50 animals is not sufficient to maintain a genetically viable and healthy population 

over a long-term period.
Appendix G

987

Therefore, considering all factors, including limited water sources, sparse-foraged vegetation, which 

resulted in the necessity for the burros to forage outside the herd area and on privately owned farm lands, 

and grazing damage to riparian areas by a small number of animals - it is recommended that the 

Harquahala Herd Area not be designated as a Herd Management Area. 
Appendix H

988

Table H-1 – Priority Species List

Priority wildlife species, their status, and occurrence in the planning area are described in the following table:

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

Federal State Other

Planning Area 

Occurrence

Mammals

Allen's (Mexican) BigEared Bat Idionycteris phyllotis BS - - p

American Pronghorn Antilocapra americana americana - G - x

Big Free-tailed Bat Nyctinomops macrotis BS - - p

Black Bear Ursus americanus - G - x

California Leaf-nosed Bat Macrotus californicus - S - x

Cave Myotis Myotis velifer BS - - x

Desert Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis mexicana - G - x

Elk Cervus elaphus - G - x

Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes BS - - x

Javelina (Collared Peccary) Pecari tajacu - G - x

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis BS - - p

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans BS - - p

Mountain Lion Puma concolor - G - x

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus - G - x

Occult Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus occultus BS - - p

Pocketed Free-tailed Bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus BS - - p

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis - S - p

Small-footed Myotis Myotis leibii BS - - p

Southern Yellow Bat Lasiurus ega - S - p

Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum - S - x

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginiatus - G - x

Birds

American Kestrel Falco sparverius - - R x

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T S - x

Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata - G - p

Barn Owl Tyto alba - - R x

Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii - - BCC x

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon - S - x

Bendire's Thrasher Toxostoma bendirei - - BCC x

Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis - - BCC x

Black-throated Gray 

Warbler Dendroica nigrescens - - BCC p

Broad-billed Hummingbird Cynanthus latirostris - - BCC p

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia BS - BCC x

Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy 

Owl Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum E S - h

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus - - BCC p

Common Black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus - S BCC x
Appendix H

989

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

Federal State Other

Planning Area 

Occurrence

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii - - R x

Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae - - BCC x

Crissal Thrasher Toxostoma crissale - - BCC x

Elf Owl Micrathene whitneyi - - BCC x

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis - S BCC x

Gambel's Quail Callipepla gambelii - G - x

Gila Woodpecker Melanerpes uropygialis - - BCC x

Gilded Flicker Colaptes chrysoides - - BCC x

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos - - R x

Grace's Warbler Dendroica graciae - - BCC p

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum - - BCC p

Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior - - BCC x

Great Egret Casmerodius albus - S - x

Greater Pewee Contopus pertinax - - BCC x

Great-Horned Owl Bubo virginianus - - R x

Harris' Hawk Parabuteo unicinctus - - R x

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys - - BCC x

Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei - - BCC x

Le Conte's Thrasher Toxostoma lecontei - - BCC x

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus BS - BCC x

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus - - BCC x

Long-eared Owl Asio otus - - R x

Merlin Falco columbarius - - R x

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura - G - x

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis - S BCC p

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus - - R x

Osprey Pandion haliaetus - S - x

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus - S BCC x

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus - - R x

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis - - R x

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli - - BCC p

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus - - R x

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus - - R x

Snowy Egret Egretta thula - S - x

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E S - x

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni - - R x

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura - - R x

Western Screech-Owl Megascops kennicottii - - R x

White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus - - R x

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica - G - x

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C S BCC x

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia - - BCC x

Zone-tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus - - R x
Appendix H

990

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

Federal State Other

Planning Area 

Occurrence

Amphibians and Reptiles

Arizona Skink Eumeces gilberti arizonensis - S - x

Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater BS - - x

Sonoran Desert Tortoise Gopherus = (Xerobates) agassizii - S - x

Lowland Leopard Frog Rana yavapaiensis - S - x

Mexican Garter Snake Thamnophis eques - S - x

Rosy Boa Charina trivirgata BS - - x

Fishes

Desert Pupfish

Cyprinodon macularius 

macularius E S - x

Desert Sucker Catostomus clarkii BS - - x

Gila Chub Gila intermedia PE S - x

Gila Topminnow

Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

occidentalis E S - x

Longfin Dace Agosia chrysogaster BS - - x

Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus BS - - x

Spikedace Meda fulgida T S - h

Invertebrates

Maricopa Tiger Beetle Cicindela oregona maricopa BS p

MacNeill Sooty Wing 

Skipper Hesperopsis gracielae BS p

Plants

Arizona Giant Sedge Carex spissa var. ultra BS - - x

California Flannelbush Fremontodendron californicum BS - - x

Murphey (Hohokam) Agave Agave murpheyi BS - - x

Federal Status

E- Endangered 

T-Threatened 

PE-Proposed Endangered

PT-Proposed Threatened 

C-Candidate

Other Classifications

BS- BLM Sensitive, Updated BLM Sensitive Species List for Arizona (Instruction Memorandum No. AZ-2000-018, Change 1)

BCC - Birds of Conservation Concern 2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

S - State Sensitive, Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (AGFD, Draft 1996)

R – Raptors

G - Game Species

Occurrence in the Planning Areas

x – occur

p – possible

h - historic
Appendix I

991

Appendix I: Consideration of 

Wilderness Characteristics 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

October 23, 2003

In Reply Refer To:

1610 (210) P

Ref. IM No. 2003-195

IM No. 2003-274

IM No. 2003-275

EMS TRANSMISSION 10/23/2003

Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275 – Change 1

Expires: 09/30/2004

To: All State Directors

From: Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning

Subject: Consideration of Wilderness Characteristics in Land Use Plans (Excluding Alaska)

Program Area: Land Use Planning

Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum corrects the reference to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

used twice in the ―Reviewing New Information‖ section of Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275. No 

other changes to Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275 have been made.

This Instruction Memorandum (IM) provides guidance regarding the consideration of wilderness 

characteristics in the land use planning process. In addition the IM sets forth policy to comply with the 

settlement in Utah v. Norton and the decision to apply the terms of the settlement Bureau-wide, excluding 

Alaska. The IM applies to all other public lands, except approximately 6.5 million acres of public land 

designated by Congress as wilderness, 15.5 million acres of wilderness study areas (WSAs) already 

established by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or Congress, and any other lands not designated 

by Congress but subject to specific provisions of law that direct BLM to manage those lands as if they 

were congressionally designated wilderness or WSAs. The IM also modifies the Land Use Planning 

Handbook (H-1601-1) to delete a statement that land use plan decisions include designation of WSAs. 
Appendix I

992

Background: The BLM submitted wilderness suitability recommendations to Congress pursuant to 

Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by October 21, 1993. BLM, 

however, continued to inventory for wilderness characteristics under the authority of Section 201 of 

FLPMA and made formal determinations regarding wilderness character consistent with the definition of 

wilderness as described in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The BLM assumed that Section 

202 of FLPMA authorized designation, through the land use planning process, of additional WSAs. 

These Section 202 WSAs, according to the BLM‘s Interim Management Policy (IMP), as 

modified in 1995, would be managed to retain their suitability as wilderness (non-impairment provision) 

until Congress designated them as wilderness or they were made available for other land uses by the 

decisions resulting from a new land use planning process. 

In Utah v Norton, the State of Utah, Utah School and Institutional Trust Land Administration, and the 

Utah Association of Counties filed suit challenging the authority of the BLM to conduct wilderness 

inventories after completion of the Section 603 identification, study, and recommendation processes. The 

Department of the Interior and the plaintiffs agreed to a settlement in April 2003. 

The settlement acknowledges: (1) that the BLM‘s authority to conduct wilderness reviews, including the 

establishment of new WSAs, expired no later than October 21, 1993, with the submission of the 

wilderness suitability recommendations to Congress pursuant to Section 603 of the FLPMA; and (2) that 

the BLM is without authority to establish new WSAs. The settlement did not, however, diminish the 

BLM‘s authority under Section 201 of the FLPMA to inventory public land resources and other values, 

including characteristics associated with the concept of wilderness, and to consider such information 

during land use planning. 

Consistent with the settlement, the BLM rescinded the Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures 

Handbook (H-1630-1). See IM-2003-195, dated June 20, 2003. It is, therefore, no longer BLM policy to 

continue to make formal determinations regarding wilderness character, designate new WSAs through the 

land use planning process, or manage any lands – except WSAs established under Section 603 of the 

FLPMA and other existing WSAs – in accordance with the non-impairment standard prescribed in the 

IMP.

Refer to IM 2003- 274 for general guidance regarding interpretation of the Utah v. Norton wilderness 

lawsuit settlement. 

Policy/Action: 

Nothing in this guidance changes current policy on the management of designated wilderness and existing 

WSAs. The BLM will continue to protect and manage congressionally designated wilderness and 

existing WSAs according to the provisions of applicable laws and the BLM‘s wilderness program 

policies. Those lands designated as WSAs in the BLM‘s land use plans after October 21, 1993, may 

continue to be managed consistent with the decisions contained in the approved land use plan.

The BLM will not designate new WSAs through the land use planning process. In addition, the BLM 

will not allocate any additional lands to be managed under the non-impairment standard prescribed in the 

IMP. Instead, the BLM may consider information on wilderness characteristics, along with information 

on other uses and values, when preparing land use plans. Wilderness characteristics are features 

associated with the concept of wilderness that may be considered in land use planning (see Attachment 

#1).
Appendix I

993

The BLM will involve the public in the planning process to determine the best mix of resource use and 

protection consistent with the multiple-use and other criteria established in the FLPMA and other 

applicable laws, regulations and policies. Lands with wilderness characteristics may be managed to 

protect and/or preserve some or all of those characteristics. This may include protecting certain lands in 

their natural condition and/or providing opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfined types of 

recreation. 

The BLM can make a variety of land use plan decisions to protect wilderness characteristics, such as 

establishing Visual Resource Management (VRM) class objectives to guide the placement of roads, trails, 

and other facilities; establishing conditions of use to be attached to permits, leases, and other 

authorizations to achieve the desired level of resource protection; and designating lands as open, closed, 

or limited to Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) to achieve a desired visitor experience. 

The BLM also has authority to designate Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) where special 

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

or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards. To qualify for consideration of the ACEC designation, such values must 

have substantial significance and value, with qualities of more than local significance and special worth, 

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern. Where ACEC values and wilderness 

characteristics coincide, the special management associated with an ACEC, if designated, may also 

protect wilderness characteristics. See BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, for 

more information. 

See the Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, Section II, Land Use Plan Decisions and Attachment #1 

of this IM for more information about making land use plan decisions to accomplish goals and objectives 

for resource management.

Considering wilderness characteristics in the land use planning process may result in several outcomes, 

including, but not limited to: 1) emphasizing other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness 

characteristics; 2) emphasizing other multiple uses while applying management restrictions (conditions of 

use, mitigation measures) to reduce impacts to some or all of the wilderness characteristics; 3) 

emphasizing the protection of some or all of the wilderness characteristics as a priority over other 

multiple uses (though the area will not be designated a WSA).

The BLM is authorized to implement current land use plans until those plans are revised or amended (if 

appropriate), provided the implementation actions conform to the approved plans and are supported by 

adequate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, usually an environmental 

assessment (EA), environmental impact statement (EIS), or Categorical Exclusion (CE). 

If the BLM determines that an area has wilderness characteristics that warrant consideration in the land 

use planning process, the BLM may initiate a plan amendment (or revision) with an accompanying NEPA 

document (EIS or EA) to consider changes to the current land use plan decisions. A decision regarding 

the timing of the plan amendment (or revision) is at the discretion of the State Director, and depends on 

the level of public interest, the position of State and local governments and cooperators, the adequacy of 

available information, funding, and other factors.
Appendix I

994

BLM Wilderness Inventories and Public Wilderness Proposals

Typically, the resource information contained in the BLM wilderness inventories was collected to support 

a land use planning process. Public wilderness proposals represent a land use proposal. In either case, 

the BLM is authorized to consider such information during preparation of a land use plan amendment or 

revision. For example, information contained in BLM wilderness inventories and public wilderness 

proposals may be considered when developing the affected environment section of the NEPA document 

that accompanies the land use plan. The information may also be used to develop the range of 

alternatives or to analyze the environmental impacts to the various natural, biological, and cultural 

resources – such as air, soil, water, vegetation, cultural, paleontologial, visual, special status species, fish 

and wildlife – as well as resource uses – such as forestry, livestock grazing, recreation, lands and realty, 

coal, and fluid minerals. Refer to the Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, Appendix C, for guidance 

concerning the resources and resource uses to be considered in land use plans. 

Alternatives are developed to reflect a reasonable range of management options considering all applicable 

information sources, such as the results of scoping, coordination with cooperating agencies, and 

practicality of management. The boundary of an area being considered in the land use plan for 

management of wilderness characteristics, therefore, is dependent on many factors and may or may not 

exactly follow the boundary of previous inventory areas. 

Reviewing New Information

When implementing land use plans, the BLM must, as with any new information, determine if the BLM 

wilderness inventories or public wilderness proposals contain significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or impacts that have 

not previously been analyzed. Since every land use plan and supporting NEPA document is different, this 

determination will need to be done on a case-by-case basis. New information or changed circumstances 

alone, however, or the failure to consider a factor or matter of little consequence, is not a sufficient basis 

to require additional NEPA consideration prior to implementing a previously approved decision. 

If the new information is sufficient to show that the action will affect the quality of the human 

environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, then a supplemental 

NEPA document shall be prepared (40 CFR 1502.9).

To help determine whether the new information or circumstances is significant, the BLM should look at 

the definition of ―significantly‖ at 40 CFR 1508.27, which requires consideration of both context and 

intensity. See Attachment #2 for more information regarding the review of new wilderness information 

during plan implementation.

The analysis of new information and the BLM‘s determination regarding its significance should be 

documented, using, as an example, the Documentation of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA 

Adequacy (DNA) worksheet. 

It is important to note that the BLM must review the new information only when it is relevant to 

a pending decision or its environmental effects. When no action is being considered, the BLM 

may defer the reviews until a more appropriate time, such as when preparing a land use plan 

amendment or revision. :
Appendix I

995

Using New Information on Lands with Wilderness Characteristics to Implement Approved Land Use 

Plans

The BLM wilderness inventories and public wilderness proposals may contain new information on land 

and resource conditions that can be used in a variety of day-to-day operations. Examples of using the 

new information in day-to-day operations include applying new mitigation measures to on-the-ground 

projects; establishing reclamation standards; updating the BLM’s resource databases; refining 

previously approved plan decisions (plan maintenance) to correct data, typographical, or mapping errors 

in the planning records; or implementing the decisions of the land use plan, such as when selecting routes 

in areas designated as limited to OHV travel.

When preparing NEPA documents for actions that implement the approved plan, the BLM may also use 

the information on lands and resources contained in BLM wilderness inventories and public wilderness 

proposals to describe the affected environment, and environmental impacts to the various natural, 

biological, and cultural resources. For example, information on naturalness may help describe the 

condition and trend of important wildlife habitat and could be included in the affected environment 

discussion if applicable. Similarly, information on the presence of roads and other facilities may be used 

to describe the current status of visual resources as well as the potential for the proposed action to affect 

those resources. Provided relevant new information is considered in the NEPA document in this fashion, 

it is not necessary to analyze impacts to the area identified by BLM wilderness inventories or public 

wilderness proposals as having wilderness characteristics.

If a NEPA document is being prepared for an action affecting lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

those characteristics are currently being considered in an on-going land use planning process, the BLM 

may acknowledge the status of the planning process and describe how the proposed action might affect 

future management considerations. 

 

This may be accomplished in the discussion of the no action alternative or in the section of the NEPA 

document on plan conformance. The fact that the BLM is considering alternative management goals for 

the affected lands in a pending land use plan revision or amendment, however, does not change the 

management or use of those lands during the interim. The BLM is authorized to implement current land 

use plans until those plans are revised or amended, if appropriate, and may acknowledge on-going 

planning efforts to ensure that the decision-maker and the public are fully informed of the consequences 

of the proposed action. 

Effect on On-going plans

This policy may require some BLM Field Offices to modify current Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

efforts. For RMPs where a Draft RMP/EIS has not been issued, Field Offices must ensure that the Draft 

RMP/EIS is consistent with this IM. If the BLM has already discussed or identified possible WSA 

designations with the public, BLM must explain the change in policy. There is no requirement, however, 

to reinitiate scoping or provide an additional comment period before releasing the Draft RMP/EIS since 

the public will be provided an opportunity to comment on the draft, including the range of alternatives 

and proposed management prescriptions.

For Draft RMP/EISs already issued that include designation of new WSAs in an alternative, it will be 

necessary to modify the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. If the effects of an alternative modified to comply 

with this policy are within the range of alternatives already analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS, preparing a 

supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS is not necessary. Each affected Field Office must determine the need 

for a supplement in consultation with WO-210.
Appendix I

996

After receiving this guidance, State and Field Offices have 45 days to consider the implications of this IM 

in coordination with WO-210. In addition, within 45 days, State Directors will review and update their 

existing State and field office policies and other guidance and make necessary modifications to comply 

with the terms of this IM.

Timeframes: This policy is in effect immediately.

Budget Impact: This policy is expected to increase slightly the costs of ongoing planning efforts as 

modifications are made to planning documents to comply with this IM. For all other land use plans the 

policy should result in diminished costs. 

Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: That sentence in the Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, 

Appendix C, Part III.B.1.a, Page 18) that directs BLM to ―Designate WSAs to be managed under the 

interim management policy (H-8550-1),‖ is hereby deleted. No other portions of H-1601-1 are affected. 

The Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures Handbook (H-6310-1) was rescinded in ―Rescission of 

National Level Policy Guidance on Wilderness Review and Land Use Planning‖ (IM-2003-195). 

Coordination: This guidance was coordinated with WO-170, WO-200 and WO-300.

Contact: For further information, contact Mike Mottice at (202) 452-0362 or Geoff Middaugh at 

(202) 785-6592

Signed by: Authenticated by:

James G. Kenna Barbara J. Brown

Acting Assistant Director Policy & Records Group, WO-560

Renewable Resources and Planning

2 Attachments

1- Definitions of Wilderness Characteristics for the Purpose of Land

Use Planning and Management Considerations to Accomplish Plan

Goals and Objectives (1 p)

 2- Review of New Wilderness Information During Plan Implementation (2 pp)

Attachment 1

Definitions of Wilderness Characteristics for the Purpose of Land Use Planning and Management 

Considerations to Accomplish Plan Goals and Objectives

Definitions: 

Wilderness Characteristics. Features of the land associated with the concept of wilderness that may be 

considered in land use planning when BLM determines that those characteristics are reasonably present, 

of sufficient value (condition, uniqueness, relevance, importance) and need (trend, risk), and are practical 

to manage.

Naturalness. Lands and resources exhibit a high degree of naturalness when affected primarily by the 

forces of nature and where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. BLM has 

authority to inventory, assess, and/or monitor the attributes of the lands and resources on public lands, 

which, taken together, are an indication of an area‘s naturalness. These attributes may include the 
Appendix I

997

presence or absence of roads and trails, fences and other improvements; the nature and extent of 

landscape modifications; the presence of native vegetation communities; and the connectivity of habitats.

Solitude and Primitive/Unconfined Recreation. Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for 

solitude, or primitive and unconfined types of recreation when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other 

people are rare or infrequent, where visitors can be isolated, alone or secluded from others, where the use 

of the area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical means, and where no or minimal developed 

recreation facilities are encountered.

Management Considerations:

A decision to protect or preserve certain lands in their natural condition, if appropriate, or provide 

outstanding opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfined types of recreation may be made at the 

conclusion of the land use planning process. Land use plan decisions may include establishing goals and 

objectives that describe the desired future condition of the land and resources, desired outcome of the 

recreation experience, and allowable uses. BLM may also identify the management actions necessary to 

achieve the intended goals and objectives, including the conditions of use that would be attached to 

permits, leases, and other authorizations to avoid or minimize impacts to the affected natural, biological, 

and cultural resources and other land uses. In some cases, when BLM determines that certain uses of the 

land could be incompatible with the achievement of other desired goals and objectives, those uses could 

be conditioned to the extent necessary to reach the necessary level of resource protection. 

Attachment 2

Review of New Wilderness Information During Plan Implementation

The Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) provides some criteria to use when reviewing new 

information. Other factors to consider when reviewing new information contained in BLM wilderness 

inventories or public wilderness proposals that may be relevant to an implementation action are:

1. Was the information on land and resource conditions available to the BLM and adequately 

considered within the range, scope and analysis of the alternatives in the plan/EIS or other NEPA 

document, and is there adequate documentation to that affect?

2. Does the new information suggest significant changes in land and resource conditions have 

occurred since the plan/EIS or other NEPA document was completed? 

3. Though BLM may not have formally disclosed in existing NEPA documents the impacts to the 

wilderness characteristics that have been identified in new inventories or public wilderness 

proposals, did BLM reasonably consider the environmental effects to the lands and resources that 

contribute to the wilderness characteristics in relevant NEPA documents?

4. Does the new information suggest that the impacts to those lands, if analyzed today, would be 

significantly different than the impacts already disclosed in the plan EIS or other NEPA 

document(s)?

5. Can BLM condition use of the lands for which new information exists in such a way that the 

effects of the action would not be significantly different from the effects already described?

6. Is the information at such a scale that BLM would ordinarily use the new information to make 

land use plan level decisions or is it more appropriate to consider for implementation level 

decisions?

New information or changed circumstances alone, however, or the failure to consider a factor or matter of 

little consequence, may not be sufficient basis to require additional NEPA consideration prior to 

implementing a previously approved decision. For example, the fact that roads and trails have become 
Appendix I

998

overgrown since previous inventories were completed represents a changed circumstance. Such change is 

most likely the result of natural environmental processes and, alone, may not be sufficient to require the 

preparation of additional NEPA documentation. The fact that BLM did not specifically analyze impacts 

of the proposed action on wilderness characteristics identified since the current land use plan or NEPA 

document was prepared is not an omission that, alone, would indicate that additional NEPA consideration 

is required. In all cases then, BLM should evaluate: 1) the extent to which the new information presents 

potential significant environmental consequences associated with the proposed action that were not 

analyzed in the previous NEPA analysis; and 2) whether those consequences are of significant gravity in 

context or intensity. 

Case Law on Supplementation of NEPA

The lead case from the United States Supreme Court on supplementation is Marsh v Oregon Natural 

Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989). It provides that ―an agency need not supplement an EIS every 

time new information comes to light after the EIS is finalized. To require otherwise would render agency 

decision-making intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new information 

outdated by the time the decision is made.‖ Id. at 373.

Rather, to trigger supplementation obligations, the new information must be sufficient to show that the 

proposed action will affect the quality of the human environment ―in a significant manner or to a 

significant extent not already considered.‖ Id. at 374.

The following is Arizona guidance issued in and excerpted from IM AZ-2005-007, Attachment 1:

State Director Guidance Specific to Wilderness Characteristics Land Use Allocations

Consistent with policy, the BLM has the authority to address wilderness characteristics and prescribe 

goals, objectives, and management actions in land use plans. Given the flexibility in how to consider 

wilderness characteristics in land use plans that is provided in Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275 -

Change 1 and recognizing the controversial nature of this topic, both in public and agency eyes, a 

consistent approach to addressing wilderness characteristics in Arizona land use plans is provided below. 

Key elements of the planning process are identified and the approach to be applied is addressed within 

each of these basic components of the plan.

Terminology – Use the term ―wilderness characteristics‖ appropriately in the plan, including for plan 

section headings. Wilderness characteristics are features of the land and are specifically identified in 

Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2003-275 – Change 1 as naturalness, solitude and 

primitive/unconfined recreation. Definitions are provided in IM No. 2003-275 – Change 1, Attachment 1. 

The IM guidance makes consistent reference to the term wilderness characteristics. Wilderness 

characteristics are the resource that the citizen groups have identified, as validated by BLM, and where 

present on any additional lands, that the BLM is recognizing in the planning process. In the short term of 

completing the plan, this clarifies to the public that wilderness characteristics are being considered and 

proposed for management in the plan. Over the long term of implementing the plan, the wilderness 

resource remains recognizable for management and maintenance of the characteristics as intended when 

the plan was completed.

Desired Future Conditions – Describe Desired Future Conditions for wilderness characteristics using 

the verbs ―maintain or manage.‖ The FLPMA Section 603 ―non-impairment standard‖ (Interim 

Management Policy for Wilderness Study Areas) will not be applied to management of wilderness 

characteristics. Additionally, wilderness characteristics will not be managed as designated wilderness 

under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Appendix I

999

Land Use Allocation – The land use plan will make an allocation for maintaining wilderness 

characteristics on certain lands where they exist. The term ―Manage for Wilderness Characteristics‖ as a 

title for such an allocation will not be used. Instead, more general references to these allocations, such as 

lands with wilderness characteristics or areas having wilderness characteristics, will be used. Do not 

develop or use acronyms.

Management Actions – List one set of management prescriptions for all wilderness characteristics 

allocated lands in an alternative as a whole as uniformly as possible. In uncommon circumstances, a 

grouping of units or an individual area may have described management that differs from other lands in 

the alternative to recognize specific management situations.

Identification – Wilderness characteristics will be a GIS theme depicted on maps in Chapters 2 

(Alternatives) and 3 (Affected Environment) of the plan. Maps may have a descriptive phrase to 

distinguish Chapter 2 maps (―Lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics‖) from Chapter 3 

maps (―Lands identified as having wilderness characteristics‖). Polygons depicting areas of wilderness 

characteristics will be shown on the maps. Individual place names for identified lands and allocated areas 

will not be listed in the land use plan. Total acreage of lands allocated to maintaining wilderness 

characteristics will be presented by alternative rather than listing the separate acreages of individual areas. 

Summary – Use of this approach shows the BLM‘s intent to clearly address citizen proposals and allows 

citizen groups to track whether their individually proposed areas are included within the lands that would 

be allocated by alternative. Wilderness characteristics and the management direction to maintain them 

would be apparent in the plan contributing to the long-term maintenance of the resource.
Appendix J

1000

Appendix J - Vegetation 

Communities Related to Fire 

Related to Fire

The following vegetative communities are present in the Agua Fria National Monument and the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala planning areas. The vegetative communities‘ descriptions are found in the 

Arizona Statewide land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management, Appendix C. 

Each vegetation community is fully described by Brown (1982a, 1994). The Brown classification for the 

American Southwest is based on biogeography delineators such as climate, vegetation physiognomy, and 

plant dominants.

Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub

The Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub vegetation is at times referred to as the Arizona Desert or PaloverdeCacti Desert. This vegetation is mainly associated with the Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub. It occurs on 

BLM land in the western part of the state and is the largest vegetation community at 3,280,602 acres. 

Cacti plants are characteristic of this desert scrub and include buckhorn cholla, cane cholla, chain fruit 

cholla, teddy bear cholla, desert Christmas cactus, pencil cholla, Klein cholla, Devil‘s club ground cholla, 

fishhook pincushion, Thornber pincushion, fish-horn barrel cactus, compass barrel cactus, and saguaro. 

Non-cactus dominant woody plants are blue palo verde, foothill palo verde, ironwood, creosotebush, 

white bursage, whitethorn acacia, limber bush, ocotillo, jojoba, little-leaved ratany, crucifixion thorn, and 

bush buckwheat. Fire is not common in this vegetation community. The Desired Future Conditions are 

for an adequate cover and mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In terms of fire management 

and fire ecology, the Desired Future Conditions are for fire to control or reduce the exotic annual weeds 

such as red brome and to limit woody vegetation to non-hazardous levels. 

A great majority of this vegetation occurs on slopes and broken ground giving it the name of Upland 

Sonoran Desert Scrub. Elevations range between 984-3,280 ft. Average annual precipitation is unreliable 

and bi-seasonal which averages 12-16 inches with approximately 30–60% occurring during summer 

months. Temperatures are warm and characteristic of subtropical deserts with a winter temperature range 

of 9–19 oC and summer range of 22–27 oC. Soils are variable but predominately sand characteristically 

covered with desert pavement. Historic fire had a return interval of decades to hundreds of years and was 

probably not common in this vegetation community (Rogers and Steele 1980). However, today the risk 

of wildfire may increase after abnormally high annual precipitation which encourages abundant growth of 

red brome and buffelgrass (McAuliffe 1995). 

Numerous mammals occupy this prevalent vegetation community, including mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), mountain lion (Felis 

concolor), ringtail cat (Bassariscus astutes), bobcat (Felis rufus), California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus 

californicus), California myotis (Myotis californicus), black-tailed jack-rabbit (Lepus californicus), desert 

cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), 

Arizona pocket mouse (Perognathus amplus), Bailey‘s pocket mouse (Chaetodipus baileyi), cactus 

mouse (Peromyscus eremicus), white-throated wood rat (Neotoma albigula), gray fox (Urocyon 
Appendix J

1001

cinereoargenteus), the endemic Harris antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus harrisii), and mesquite 

mouse (Peromuscus merriami). This paloverde-cacti-mixed scrub series supports diverse bird 

communities, including many species associated with other vegetation communities that extend into 

suitable habitats in the Arizona Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub. These species include typical thornscrub 

species such as Harris‘ hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus), white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica), elf owl 

(Micrathene whitneyi), pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis sinuatus), the ―cactus‖ woodpeckers (gila woodpecker 

(Melanerpes uropygialis), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), and ladder-backed woodpecker 

(Picoides scalaris), curve-billed thrasher (Toxostoma curvirostre), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus 

brunneicapilus), lack-throated sparrow (Amphisipiza bilineata), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), 

Gambel‘s quail (Lophortyx gambelii), gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides), ash-throated flycatcher 

(Myiarchus cinerascens), house finch (Carpodaucus mexicanus), and black-tailed gnatcher (Polioptila 

melanura). Many Sonoran and other desert reptiles also add to the wildlife diversity of this vegetation 

community, including species with more limited ranges such as western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), 

gila monster (Heloderma suspectum), Arizona Sonoran coral snake (Micruroides euryxanthus), tiger 

rattlesnake (Crotalus tigris), desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), Mojave green rattlesnake (Crotalus 

scutulatus scutulatus), western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), western diamondback rattlesnake (Crolatus 

atrox), regal horned lizard (Phrynosoma solare), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), and 

ornate tree lizard (Urosaurus ornatus) (Brown 1994).

Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub

The Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub vegetation on BLM land occurs mainly in western Arizona. It is the 

second most common vegetation type on BLM land as it occupies 2,727,540 acres. This vegetation type is 

relatively species rich in comparison with the Great Basin Desert Scrub as there is a mixture of different 

shrub species throughout this type. The Sonoran Desert Scrub vegetation is associated with Mohave Desert 

Scrub and Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub. Characteristic shrubs are creosotebush, whitebursage, octillo, 

brittlebrush, foothill palo verde, fourwing saltbush, and Ironwood. Saguaro is a characteristic cactus. 

Western honey mesquite, ironwood, catclaw acacia, blue palo verde, desert willow, and smoketree are 

usually associated with washes. Big galleta grass is an important grass species. Invasive weedy species 

include exotic species such as buffelgrass, red brome, filaree, prickley lettuce, Russian thistle, and London 

rocket. Fire is not common in this vegetation community. The Desired Future Conditions are for an 

adequate cover and mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In terms of fire management and fire 

ecology, the Desired Future Conditions are for fire to control or reduce the exotic annual weeds such as red 

brome and buffelgrass, and to limit woody vegetation to non-hazardous levels. 

As a result of high temperatures and low precipitation, plant growth is typically opened and simple 

reflecting intense competition for soil water among individuals. Annual precipitation varies between 2 

and 9 inches. Winter temperatures are mild but summer months are hot, and desert pavement is common. 

Vegetation tends to occur along washes and small drainages. Sand dunes are common in some areas. 

Historic fire had a return interval of decades to hundreds of years and was probably not common in this 

vegetation community (Rogers and Steele 1980). However, today the risk of wildfire may increase after 

abnormally high annual precipitation which encourages abundant growth of red brome and buffelgrass 

(McAuliffe 1995).

Mammals typical to this arid region are generally small burrowing mammals, such as mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), mountain lion 

(Felis concolor), ringrtail cat (Bassariscus astutes), bobcat (Felis rufu), grey fox (Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus), kit fox (Vulpes velox), white-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), 

black-tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus), desert pocket mouse (Chaetodipus penicillatus), and desert 
Appendix J

1002

and Merriam Kangaroo rats (Dipodomys deserti and D. merriami), as well as the ubiquitous coyote 

(Canis latrans). This vegetation community is the poorest of the Sonoran Desert for birds, because of its 

sparsely vegetated and structurally shorter habitats. Typical bird species include lesser numbers of aridadapted species, such as the LeConte‘s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei), white-winged dove (Zenaida 

asiatica), elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi), black-throated sparrow (Amphisipiza bilineata), loggerhead 

shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapilus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo 

jamaicensis), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), gilded flicker (Colaptes chysoides), 

mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Gambel‘s quail (Lophortyx gambelii), and verdin (Auriparus 

flaviceps). Amphibians include Couch‘s spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus cochii), western green toad (Bufo 

debilis insidior), and Woodhouse‘s toad (Bufo woodhousii). This vegetation community supports a 

diverse and productive community of reptiles. The sandy plains and dunes of the Lower Colorado River 

Sonoran Desert Scrub support a number of unique sand-adapted lizards and snakes, such as fringe-toed 

lizards (Uma inornata), banded sand snake (Chilomeniscus cinctus), and sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes). 

Rocky outcrops, bajadas, talus slopes, washes, and gravel plains each support varied and often different 

herpetofauna communities – chuckwalla (Sauromalus ater), desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), 

western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), desert glossy snake (Arizona elegans eburnata), western 

rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), regal horned lizard (Phrynosoma solare), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma 

platyrhinos), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (Brown 1994).

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland vegetation is wide spread throughout Arizona and grows on 

1,533,012 acres of BLM land. It is associated with Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub and Great Basin 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland vegetation. The Great Basin Conifer community is a cold-desert, evergreen 

woodland that is characterized by juniper and pinyon pine trees. Juniper trees tend to dominate at 

elevations below 6,560 ft, while pinyon pine dominates at the higher elevations. These trees are shortgrowing and rarely exceed 12 m in height. The canopy cover is mostly opened except on higher 

elevations or mesic sites where tree limbs may interlock. Understory shrubs, forbs, and grasses are 

usually sparse due to aridity and intense competition for soil water from the juniper and pinyon pine trees. 

Important juniper species are Rocky Mountain juniper and Great Basin juniper. The Rocky Mountain 

pinyon pine dominates in Arizona. Associated grasses may include blue gramma, galleta grass, Indian 

ricegrass, western wheatgrass, Junegrass, and several muhleys or dropseeds. Dominant shrubs are big 

sagebrush, snakeweed, rabbitbrush, winterfat, black sagebrush, blackbrush, cliffrose, Apache plume, 

Mormon-tea, fourwing saltbrush, antelope bitterbrush, and yucca. Forbs include several gilia, buckwheat, 

penstemon, lupine, and globemallow species. The mixtures of grasses, shrubs, and forbs depend on soil, 

precipitation, temperature, and disturbance. Cacti include several different species of hedgehog, 

prickleypear, and cholla. 

The Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland is cold-temperate woodland characterized by cold winter 

temperatures with freezing temperatures occurring approximately 150 days per year. Summer 

temperatures are warm. Annual precipitation ranges between 10 and 22 inches, is distributed evenly 

throughout the year, and mainly occurs as snow in winter months. Soils are characteristically shallow and 

rocky. Juniper trees have invaded large areas of former grasslands and sagebrush dominated rangelands. 

Several factors, including fire suppression, climate change, and livestock grazing, may be responsible for 

the juniper invasion. Efforts to remove the invading trees have not been successful. Historic wildfire was 

not common. The sparse understory and openness of the pinyon–juniper woodlands did not support the 

spread of fire expect on mesic areas where fuel was sufficient (Paysen et al. 2000). However, in modern 

times, many of these woodlands have sufficient fuel loads to support fire because of increased tree 

densities and the establishment of cheatgrass, red brome, buffelgrass and other annual weeds. The 

Desired Future Conditions are that annual weeds such as cheatgrass are controlled, ladder fuels and 
Appendix J

1003

downed woody debris are limited or not present, and juniper and piñon pine tree densities and cover occur 

at their historic range of variation. 

Only a few vertebrate species are closely tied to or centered within this vegetation community, such as 

mountain lion (Felis concolor), coyote (Canis latrans), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), ringtrail cat 

(Bassariscus astutus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pinyon mouse (Peromyscus truei), bushy-tailed 

woodrat (Neotoma cinerea), Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis), pinyon jay 

(Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii) Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior), blackthroated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), Scott‘s oriole (Icterus parisorum), wild turkey (Meleagris 

gallopavo), long-eared owl (Asio otus), Cassin‘s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), chipping sparrow 

(Spizella passerina), juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus 

cinerascens), Bewick‘s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), western scrub-jay 

(Aphelocoma californica), common raven (Corvus corax), gray vireo (Vireo vicinior), mountain bluebird 

(Sialia currucoides),Woodhouse‘s toad (Bufo woodhousii), Great Basin spadefoot toad (Spea 

intermontana), and the Striped whiptail (Cnemidophorus velox). A somewhat larger number of the more 

adaptable, and therefore, more widely distributed species also may be found in these habitats year-round 

or seasonally (Brown 1994).

Great Basin Desert Scrub

Great Basin Desert Scrub vegetation occurs on 1,058,401 acres of BLM land in the Arizona Strip, 

Phoenix, Kingman, and Safford Field Offices. The Painted Desert is predominately Great Basin Desert 

Scrub vegetation. It is associated with Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub and Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland vegetation. Species diversity is low with dominant shrubs occupying vast tracts of land. 

Characteristic vegetation is low–growing, widely space hemispherical, non-sprouting shrubs with widely 

spaced bunchgrasses. Dominant shrubs include big sagebrush, black sagebrush, Bigelow sagebrush, 

shadscale, fourwing saltbush, rabbitbrush, winterfat, hopsage, horsebrush, blackbrush, and greasewood. 

Associated grasses may include blue gramma, galleta grass, Indian ricegrass, western wheatgrass, 

Junegrass, and several muhleys or dropseeds. Forbs include several gilia, buckwheat, penstemon, lupine, 

and globemallow species. Cacti number and species in Great Basin Desertscub are relatively few in 

comparison to those found in warm deserts. Cactus plants are small in stature or prostrate and include 

several species of prickly pear, hedge hog, and cholla. The mixtures of the different plants depend on 

soil, precipitation, temperature, and disturbance. Introduced weeds such as cheatgrass, medusahead, red 

brome, Russian thistle, halogeton, filaree, tumble mustard occur on disturbed sites. The introduced 

woody plants, Russian olive and saltcedar are commonly found present in riparian corridors. Historic fire 

intervals range between 5−100 years depending on the shrub community type and fuel build-up (Paysen 

et al. 2000). Annual weeds such as cheatgrass and red brome have caused an increase in fire reoccurrence and fuel flammability. The Desired Future Conditions are for fire to naturally reduce annual 

weed densities and cover, limit or reduce the invasion of juniper, and for the densities of shrubs, such as 

big sagebrush, to be maintained within their historic range of variability. 

The Great Basin Desert Scrub is part of the Great Basin Desert which is a cold desert characterized by 

cold, harsh winters, hot summers, and low precipitation. Elevation ranges between 3,930 and 7,220 ft. 

Average annual precipitation is approximately less than 10 inches with the majority occurring during the 

winter months as snow. Maximum daily temperature values may remain below freezing during many 

days of December, January and February—the three coldest months of the year. For much of the area, 

increasing spring and summer temperatures coincide with decreasing soil water supplies which limits 

plant growth.

 

A distinct fauna is centered in this vegetation community. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bighorn 

sheep (Ovis canadensisi), Townsend‘s ground squirrel (Spermophilus townsendi), badger (Taxidea taxus), 
Appendix J

1004

long-tailed pocket mouse (Perognathus formosus), and northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys 

leucogaster) are associated with sagebrush communities of the Great Basin Desert Scrub. Large 

ungulates are poorly represented here, however several birds such as the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaeos), 

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), Sage sparrow (Amphispiza 

belli, Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), common raven (Corvus corax), rock wren (Salpinctes 

obsoletus), horned lark (Erempphila alpestris), Say‘s phoebe (Sayornis saya), western meadowlark 

(Sturnella neglecta), and Brewer‘s sparrow (Spizella breweri) are characteristic of sagebrush 

communities. The Sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) and Great Basin spadefoot toad (Scophiopus 

intermontanus) are common representative species. A number of reptilian subspecies such as Desert 

horned lizard (Phrynosomo platyrhihnos platyrhinos), and Great Basin and Plateau tiger whiptails 

(Cnemidophorus tigris tigris and C. Tigris septentrionalis) are indicative of Great Basin Desert Scrub and 

a history of evolutionary separation (Brown 1994).

Semidesert Grassland

The Semidesert Grassland is located on 757,668 acres of BLM land mainly in east-central and southeast 

Arizona. This vegetation type is associated with Plains and Great Basin grassland, Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland, and Chihuahuan Desert Scrub. Originally the grasses were perennial bunchgrasses but 

grazing has encouraged the increased growth of sod grasses on areas with deep soil and heavy to 

moderate rainfall. The bunchgrasses have been replaced by annual grasses in areas with low 

precipitation. In some areas with deep soils and well protected from erosion bunchgrasses still cover 

large areas in association with a few shrubs and cacti. However, there are areas where grass cover has 

been reduced as a result of woody plant and cacti colonization. Fire with moderate return intervals was 

important in the ecology of these grasslands (Paysen et al. 2000). However, grazing and fire suppression 

has altered the historic natural fire regime. The Desired Future Conditions are for perennial grasses to 

cover its historic range of variability, annual grass cover is reduced, and fire naturally inhibits the 

invasion of woody plants such as juniper, tarbush, whitethorn, and creosotebush. 

Tobosa grass and black grama are the most dominant species in the Semidesert Grassland. Tobosa grass 

is generally found growing on heavy soils that are subject to flooding. Black grama is usually found of 

gravelly, upland soils. The other grasses are numerous and include black grama, sideoats grama, black 

grama, slender grama, chino grama, bush muhly, threeawn species, Arizona cottontop, vine grass, plains 

bristlegrass, plains lovegrass, wolftail, and little bluestem. Lehmann lovegrass was introduced for its 

forage value but has expanded at the expense of more palatable grass species. The assorted shrubs that are 

intermixed among the grasses include mesquite, one-seed juniper, lotebush, all-thorn, Mormon tea, false 

mesquite, catclaw acacia, desert hackberry, barberry, and ocotillo. Tarbush, whitethorn, and creosotebush 

have invaded extensive areas. Cacti and other succulents are important in this vegetation type and they 

include several yucca species, sotols, beargrass, several agrave species, barrel cactus, Turk‘s head, cane 

cholla, desert Christmas cholla, rainbow cactus, and several prickleypear and hedgehog species. The 

important forbs include mallow, lupine, buckwheat, filaree, spiderling, white-mat, amaranth, and devils 

claw. Invasive grasses include red brome, bristlegrass, foxtail barley, and wild oats which are increasing 

as a result of past grazing practices. 

The Semidesert grassland is a warm temperate grassland ranging in elevation from 2,300-4,920 ft. Most 

of this grassland receives an annual precipitation between 8-12 inches with the majority coming during 

the spring and summer. Winters are mild and freezing temperatures occur generally less than 100 days 

during the year. Summers are warm with several days over 38 oC. 

The Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) and White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are the 

primary large grazing mammals associated with the Semidesert Grassland. The Javelina (Dicotyles 
Appendix J

1005

tajacu), also known as the Collared peccary, can be found in the Semidesert Grassland. Small burrowing 

mammals are primarily represented by the Black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and various 

burrowing rodents, including the Spotted ground sqirrel (Spermophilus spilosoma), Hispid pocket mouse 

(Perognathus hispidus), antelope jack rabbit (Lepus alleni), and northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys 

leucogaster). Numerous bird species include Swainson‘s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Mourning dove 

(Zenaido mocroura), greater roadrunner (Geococcyc californianus), Say‘s phoebe (Sayornis saya) Cactus 

wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), Gambel‘s quail (Lophortyx gambelii), Black-throated sparrow 

(Amphispiza bilineata), Cassin‘s sparrow (Aimophila cassinii), Botteri‘s sparrow (Aimophila botterri), 

brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), Chihushuan raven (Corvus cryptoleucus), scaled quail 

(Callipepla squamata), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The amphibian Woodhouse‘s toad 

(Bufo woodhousii) is found within this vegetation community. Reptiles include the Desert box turtle 

(Terrapene ornate luteola), Mexican (western) hognose snake (Heterodon nasicus kennerlyi), the allfemale Desert-grassland whiptail (Cnemidophorus uniparens), and common earless lizard (Holbrookia 

texana scitula) (Brown 1994).

Interior Chaparral

Interior Chaparral vegetation represents 425,287 acres of BLM land mainly in western Arizona. It is 

associated with Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub, Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub, Mohave Desert Scrub, and 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland vegetation. The vegetation is dominated by shrubs with small, 

thick, evergreen leaves and wide-spreading, deep root systems. Historic fire was an important component 

of the ecosystem (Pase and Brown 1982a). As such, the shrubs are well adapted to fire and reproduce 

readily from heat-scarified seed that is stored in soil for decades. Some species readily sprout from root 

crowns after fire. The dense compacted leafy growth of the shrubs are naturally flammable which leads to 

a high fire hazard. The dominant plant is shrub live oak. Other shrubs are birchleaf mountain mahogany, 

skunkbush sumac, silktassel, desert ceanothus, hollyleaf buckthorn, cliffrose, desert olive, sophora, and 

Arizona rosewood. Shrub cover is approximately 60–70% which allows grasses such as sideoats grama, 

hairy grama, cane bluestem, plains lovegrass, wolftail, and threeawn to grow in the inter-shrub spaces. 

Forbs are not common except after fire and include penstemon species, Wright‘s verbena, goldenrod, 

purple nightshade, hoarhound, and scarlet morning glory. Occasionally, one-seed juniper, emory oak, or 

pinyon pine may occur. Weedy species include filaree and red brome which are increasing because of 

disturbances such as grazing and fire. The Desired Future Conditions are that fire naturally maintains 

shrub cover while reducing annual grass cover, the invasion of woody plants such as juniper and piñon 

pine are controlled, and the average age of chaparral stands is reduced through controlled fire or 

mechanical treatment. 

Interior Chaparral vegetation is considered a warm-temperate scrubland with elevations mainly between 

3,445-6,070 ft but higher sites occur on drier and warmer slopes. The climate is characterized by cool, 

moist winters and hot, dry summers. The majority of precipitation occurs during winter months when 

plants are dormant or nearly so. 

Small mammals associated with the Interior Chaparral include the Cliff chipmunk (Eutamias dorsalis), 

White-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), White-throated woodrat (Neotoma albiguld), and eastern 

cottontail (Sylviligus floridanus). Nesting birds include the Spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), Virginia‘s 

warbler (Vermivora virginiae), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma 

dorsale), black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis), rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps), 

bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), Scott‘s oriole (Icterus 

parisorum), rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), and canyon wren (Catherpes mexicanus). Amphibians 

common to this vegetation community include Woodhouse‘s toad (Bufo woodhousii) and Arizona toad 

(Bufo microscaphus). Reptiles common to the Interior Chaparral include the Western threadsnake 
Appendix J

1006

(Leptotyphlops humilis), Glossy snake (Arizona elegans), Smith‘s black-headed snake (Tantilla 

hobartsmithi), Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), Western fance lizard (S. occidentialis), Arizona 

alligator lizard (Gerrhonorus kingi), and Sonora mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis pyromelana) (Brown 

1994).

Riparian

Riparian vegetation is found on 176,927 acres of BLM land in association with streams and rivers. The 

area occupied by riparian vegetation is relatively small in relationship with other vegetation types but 

their biological and ecological importance is larger than their limited geographic occurrence. Riparian 

vegetation is important to wildlife as forage, cover, breeding, and migration corridors. Riparian corridors 

have been greatly disturbed by a variety of activity such as grazing, mining, tree harvesting, and stream 

flow alteration. The Desired Future Conditions are that annual weed cover and density is controlled and 

ladder fuels and downed woody debris are limited or not present. Disturbances such as livestock grazing, 

mining, and off road vehicle travel, that can potentially reduce natural vegetation cover and vigor, are 

managed to maintain adequate cover and mix of natural plant species.

The nature and species composition of the riparian vegetation changes depending on elevation and 

associated upland vegetation community. For example, at high elevation stream gradients are steep with 

relatively high precipitation and cool temperatures, while at low elevations stream gradients are gentle, 

low precipitation, and warm temperatures. At the higher elevations Pacific willow, bigtooth maple, 

narrowleaf cottonwood, box elder, black cherry, sycamore, Arizona walnut, velvet ash and western 

soapberry and red willow are the woody plants. At lower elevations mesquite, Gooddings willow, netleaf 

hackberry, western soapberry, velvet ash, Wright‘s Sycamore, and black cherry characterize riparian 

vegetation. Russian olive and saltcedar are two invasive woody plants that have colonized large expanses 

of low- to mid-elevation riparian corridors. 

Large mammals characteristic of riparian woodlands include White-tailed deer and Black bear (Ursus 

americanus). Small rodents include Arizona gray squirrel (Sciurus arizonesis). The River otter (Lutra 

canadensis) is a rare species found in woodlands adjacent to streams. Small carinovres such as Ringtailed 

cat (Bassaricus astutus) and Skunk (Mephitus spp, spilogale putorius) are also found in woodlands 

containing streams. Red bats (Lasiurus borealis) are found in riparian woodlands. Riparian habitats 

typically host the greatest variety, and often numbers, of birds in Arizona, with many being riparianobligate species. Examples of bird species inhabiting riparian woodlands include the Zone-tailed hawk 

(buteo albonotatus), Northern (Bullock‘s) oriole (Icterus galbula), Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus), Black phoebe (Sayornix nigricans), the Federally endangered Southwestern willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), brown-crested flycatcher (Myiarchus tyrannulus), yellow warbler 

(Dendroica petechia), Bell‘s vireo (Vireo bellii), Lucy‘s warbler (Vermivora luciae), black-chinned 

hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), summer tanager (Piranga rubrai), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis 

psaltria), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virensi), hooded oriole (Icterus curullatus), Abert‘s towhee (Pipilo 

aberti), western screech-owl (Otus asio), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascnes), Gambel‘s 

quail (Lophortyx gambellii), Costa‘s hummingbird (Calypte costae), and Pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis 

sinuatus). Arizona treefrog (H. Wringtorum), canyon treefrog (Hyla arenicolor), Woodhouse‘s toad 

(Bufo woodhousii), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinumi), and leopard frogs (Rana spp.) are found 

more in interior forest. Ringnecked snake (Diadophis punctatus), black-necked gartersanke (Thamnophis 

cyrtopsis cyrtopsis), Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops), Checkered gartersnake 

(Thamnophis marcianus marcianus), narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus), Arizona 

mud turtle (Kinosternon), yellow mud turtle (Kinosternon),and Sonora mud turtle (Kinosternon 

sonoriensei) are often found in riparian woodlands.
Appendix J

1007

Cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidis), White-footed mouse (peromyscus leucopus), Desert pocket mouse 

(Perognathus penicillatus), and Arizona shrew (Sorix arizonae) are commonly found in the Riparian 

Scrub, as well as in other communities. Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma 

dorsale), Verdin (Auriparus flaviceps) and Black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura) are 

representative of nesting birds. Red-spotted toad (Bufo punctatus), though found in various communities, 

is quite common to the Riparian Scrub.
 Appendix K

1008

Appendix K – Special Stipulations 

for Special Recreation Permits 

In addition to the conditions and stipulations listed on the Special Recreation Application and Permit 

form, the Arizona and Phoenix District BLM have established the following additional stipulations 

designed to protect the lands and resources involved, reduce user conflicts, and/or minimize health and 

safety hazards. The stipulations will be made part of the permit. Failure to comply with these 

stipulations may result in the loss of permit privileges. 

General Administrative:

Estimated fee payments, or the minimum non-refundable annual fee, whichever is applicable, will be 

submitted in advance to the BLM authorized officer prior to issuance or validation of the permit. Any 

additional use fees will be due at the end of the six month reporting period in which the fees were 

accrued. Overpayment of fees will be applied to the following year=s estimated use fees. Use fees for 

commercial permits are 3% of gross revenue or the minimum annual fee of $80, whichever is greater.

Post-use reports and estimated fee payments for annual and multi-year permits will be submitted to the 

BLM on a fiscal year semi-annual basis. They are due within 15 days after the six month use period 

(April 15 and October 15).

The permittee is required to contact private landowners and other governmental agencies whose property 

is affected by the use associated with the permit (this includes the Arizona State Land Department for 

state trust lands). Evidence that authorization has been obtained must be available to the BLM authorized 

officer upon request.

Any changes to the approved Plan of Operations must first be approved by the BLM authorized officer. 

This includes the use of subcontractors.

The permit does not authorize exclusive use and shall not be construed in any way so as to prevent public 

use or access on any public lands except as expressly allowed under the permit.
 Appendix K

1009

The permittee is required to provide the BLM authorized officer with a copy of a valid Certificate of 

Insurance covering the periods of use. The U.S. Government must be named as a co-insured party on the 

policy. Minimum general liability limits are: $300,000 per occurrence and $500,000 annual aggregate for 

bodily injury, and $30,000 property damage per occurrence and $50,000 annual aggregate, if the policy 

specifies aggregate limits.

It is the responsibility of the permittee to ensure valid insurance coverage, including general public 

liability, with the limits listed above, is provided for all equipment and services supplied by 

subcontractors. A copy of the valid insurance coverage must be made available to the BLM authorized 

officer upon request.

A copy of this permit and the stipulations must be carried by guides during all tours conducted on BLMadministered lands, and must be made available to any BLM employee or client upon request. 

Any violation of the permit terms, conditions and stipulations may be subject to penalties prescribed in 43 

CFR 8372.0-7, which may include fines up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to 12 months. 

Additionally, any such violation may result in permit probation, suspension or revocation. Examples 

which can lead to permit violations include, but are not limited to; delinquent post use reports and/or 

payments, deviations to operating plan not approved by authorized official, violation of laws and 

regulations, significant resource damage and public endangerment.

All signs on public lands must be authorized by the BLM in writing.

The permittee is responsible for ensuring the safety of all clients and support personnel, assuring that all 

permit actions are in conformance with local, state and federal health and safety standards and providing 

for appropriate emergency attention.

All injuries requiring emergency hospital care will be reported to the BLM authorized officer within two 

days of the occurrence and a Death and Injury Report submitted to the BLM authorized officer within 10 

days of the occurrence.

The BLM reserves the right to alter the terms, conditions or stipulations of a permit at any time for 

reasons such as significant policy, administrative procedure or stipulation change.
 Appendix K

1010

Annual permits remain valid if the permittee is in good standing by complying with all terms, conditions 

and stipulations including timely submission of post use reports, and applicable use fee payments. For 

multi-year permits, an annual review is done at the beginning of each fiscal year (October 1) and permits 

are validated for the upcoming fiscal year. For a permit to be validated, the permittee must be in good 

standing by complying with all terms, conditions and stipulations including timely submission of post use 

reports, and applicable use fee payments. In addition, certificates of insurance shall be current, and 

operating plans must be reviewed and updated with any changes before a permit will be validated for the 

upcoming fiscal year. 

Resource Protection:

All activities are to remain on the approved roads, trails, washes and/or staging areas. No deviation to 

these routes is permitted without prior approval from the BLM authorized officer. Motorized vehicles are 

not permitted in riparian areas or in running washes except at road crossings.

Employees and clients will be instructed that it is unlawful to disturb, deface, excavate or remove any 

archaeological or paleontological objects or structures. Simply, look but don=t touch! Rock art may be 

photographed but not touched. Collection of prehistoric or historic artifacts is not allowed. Any 

prehistoric or historic cultural site or human remains discovered by the permittee, employees or clients 

will be left undisturbed and reported as soon as possible to the BLM authorized officer.

Permittee must notify the BLM authorized officer of any specific archaeological sites proposed for 

inclusion on tours. Tours to sites are subject to BLM approval and protective stipulations. 

Historical mine sites should not be disturbed. Collecting artifacts from these sites is strictly prohibited.

All persons operating under this SRP, including subcontractors, are prohibited from entering abandoned 

mines.

Proposed activities will be conducted in a manner that will not interfere with mining or exploration 

operations. No minerals are to be collected from areas encumbered by active mining claims unless 

authorized by the claimant(s).
 Appendix K

1011

Harassment of livestock, wildlife, wild horses or burros, or destruction of private and public 

improvements such as fences and gates is prohibited. All gates and fences shall be left as found. The 

taking of any threatened or endangered plant or animal is prohibited.

8. Collection, harassment and disturbance of desert tortoises and Gila monsters is prohibited by 

 Arizona State Law. If encountered on roads or trails they should be avoided. If a desert 

tortoise is encountered and cannot be avoided, it should be carefully moved to safety by carrying 

it horizontal to the ground, not tilted, and placed in the shade the minimum distance needed to 

remove it from harm‘s way. Gila monsters should be avoided and not handled. They are 

venomous and can inflict a serious and painful bite.

9. Vegetation clearing, trimming or removal is not permitted without prior approval from the BLM 

authorized official.

10. If the volume of use is determined to be adversely impacting soils or riparian condition through 

erosion, bank alteration or other means, the BLM may restrict use of affected areas or routes to allow 

restoration and recovery of degraded areas. During wet periods, certain road and trail segments may be 

closed to all traffic. The BLM will consider the applicant=s needs when designing and implementing 

restrictions or watershed restoration efforts that could influence the operation. 

12. In order to minimize the importation or spread of noxious weeds, before entering public land, all 

vehicles are to be washed thoroughly (including the undercarriage and engine compartment) to remove all 

soil and vegetation debris (including seeds and seed heads) acquired from previous use. This washing 

should occur at the home base of operations of the permittee before traveling to public lands. All vehicles 

used for activities approved by this permit are subject to inspection by the BLM.

The permittee will be committed to preserving and protecting the public lands by learning, practicing and 

promoting the Leave No Trace principles listed below:

Plan ahead and prepare.

 Travel and camp on durable surfaces.

Dispose of waste properly.

Leave what you find.
 Appendix K

1012

Minimize campfire impacts.

Respect wildlife.

Be considerate of other visitors.

Motorized Vehicle Use:

No motorized vehicles are permitted in riparian areas or in running washes except at road crossings. 

Substantiated reports of unauthorized use in these areas will result in immediate probation and possible 

suspension or revocation of permit privileges.

All motor vehicle use will comply with existing BLM and state motorized vehicle laws and regulations on 

public lands relating to use, standards, registration, operation and inspection. These regulations include, 

but are not limited to, the following:

No person shall operate an off-road vehicle on public lands:

In a reckless, careless or negligent manner;

In excess of established speed limits;

While under the influence of alcohol, narcotics or drugs;

In a manner causing, or likely to cause, significant undue damage to or disturbance of the soil, wildlife, 

wildlife habitat, improvements, cultural, or vegetative resources.

Drivers shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, saddle horses, pack trains, and animal drawn vehicles.

Drivers are prohibited from operating a motor vehicle, unless the driver and each front seat passenger are 

restrained by a properly fastened safety belt.

Permittee will be committed to preserving and protecting the public lands by learning, practicing and 

promoting the Tread Lightly! principles listed below.

Travel and recreate with minimal impact,

Respect the environment and the rights of others,

Educate yourself, plan and prepare before you go,
 Appendix K

1013

Allow for future use of the outdoors, leave it better than you found it, and

Discover the rewards of responsible recreation.
Appendix L

1014

Appendix L – Fire Management 

Units 

Description of Wildland Fire Management 

Strategies by Fire Management Unit

The Phoenix/Kingman Fire Management Zone field offices will provide an appropriate management 

response (AMR) on all wildland fires, with emphasis on fire fighter and public safety, minimizing 

suppression costs, considering benefits and values to be protected consistent with resource objectives, 

standards and guidelines. Responses to each wildland will be initiated in a timely manner with a force 

mix, that is based upon established fire management direction as documented in the approved RMPs. The 

use of appropriate management response will allow land managers to tailor preplanned wildland fire 

responses to meet objectives established in resource management plans and their associated 

implementation plans. 

The appropriate management response concept will be applied for all public lands. Responses range from 

full fire suppression to managing fires for resource benefits (fire use). Management responses applied to 

a fire will be based on objectives derived from the land use allocations; relative risk to resources, the 

public and firefighters; potential complexity; and the ability to defend management boundaries. Any 

wildland fire can be aggressively suppressed and any fire that occurs in an area designated for fire use can 

be managed for resource benefits, when it meets the prescribed criteria identified in the approved fire 

management plan and fire use plan.

All fire management actions will adhere to the standards outline in the ―Interagency Standards for Fire 

and Aviation Operations.‖

The Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management assigned 

all BLM-administered lands in Arizona one of the two following land use allocations. The best science 

available was used to determine the allocations and response to fire.

Identification of fire management units/zones and strategies within the units/zones is the cornerstone for 

planning the management of the wildland fire program. This section must tie directly to the decisions 

made in the land and resource management planning process by management area, aggregated into 

FMUs. This section identifies objectives, standards, guidelines, and/or future desired conditions within 

the FMU and the wildland fire management strategies that will be used to accomplish them. The first 

priority in all Wildland Fire Management Strategies is firefighter and public safety.

An FMU is any land management area definable by objectives, management constraints, topographic 

features, access, values to be protected, political boundaries, fuel types, major fire regime groups, and so 

on, that set it apart from the management characteristics of an adjacent FMU. The FMUs may have 

dominant management objectives and pre-selected strategies assigned to accomplish these objectives. 

The development of FMUs should avoid redundancy. Each FMU should be unique as evidenced by 

management strategies, objectives and attributes.
Appendix L

1015

The Fire Management Unit (FMU) designation was used instead of Fire Management Zone (FMZ). FMZ 

development is a key step in the Interagency Initial Attack Analysis (IIAA) that describes protection and 

suppression capabilities within the context of historical fire occurrence as it relates to land use planning. 

FMU development focuses on key multi-resource management objectives as outlined in land use 

planning. 

Suppression Criteria. 

Fire suppression actions taken will be appropriate management response which is defined as those fire 

suppression strategies and tactics that provide for firefighter and public safety first, result in the least 

impact and disturbances to the landscape, least acreage burned and least suppression cost. Fires that 

escape initial attack will have a Wildland Fire Situation Analysis completed that will document the 

selected preferred suppression alternative and guide the management of the fire.

Under the Proposed Action, identified in the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, 

Fuels and Air Quality Management (Section 2.0 Description of Alternatives), BLM–administered public 

lands would be assigned to one of the following two land use allocations for fire management. Refer to 

Map 3-17 for a depiction of the two land use allocations for fire.

Allocation 1 – Wildland Fire Use: Areas suitable for wildland fire use for 

resource management benefit.

This allocation includes areas where wildland fire is desired, and there are few or no constraints for its 

use. Where conditions are suitable, unplanned and planned wildfire may be used to achieve desired 

objectives, such as to improve vegetation, wildlife habitat or watershed conditions, maintain nonhazardous levels of fuels, reduce the hazardous effects of unplanned wildland fires and meet resource 

objectives. Where fuel loading is high but conditions are not initially suitable for wildland fire, fuel loads 

are reduced by mechanical, chemical or biological means to reduce hazardous fuels levels and meet 

resource objectives (includes WUI areas).

Allocation 2 – Non Wildland Fire Use: Areas not suitable for wildland 

fire use for resource benefit.

This allocation includes areas where mitigation and suppression are required to prevent direct threats 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 WUI areas) where unplanned ignition could have negative effects to ecosystem 

unless some form of mitigation takes place. Mitigation may include mechanical, biological, chemical, or 

prescribed fire means to maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels, reduce the hazardous effects of 

unplanned wildland fires and meet resource objectives. The allocation of lands is based on the desired 

future condition of vegetation communities, ecological conditions and ecological risks. The allocation of 

lands is determined by contrasting current and historical conditions and ecological risks associated with 

any changes (Figure 2.1). The condition class concept helps describe alterations in key ecosystem 

components such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. 

BLM Fire Management Plans, will include the two allocations and identify areas for including fire use, 

mechanical, biological or chemical means to maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels, reduce the hazardous 
Appendix L

1016

effects of unplanned wildland fires and meet resource objectives. They will also identify areas for 

exclusion from fire (through fire suppression), chemical, mechanical, and/or biological treatments.

Fire Management Objectives Common to All FMUs

Specific suppression actions will be common to all FMUs and will be hereafter referenced as such in the 

following FMU descriptions. The full range of responses are available to implement protection objectives 

for unplanned ignitions:

Fires will be contained at the minimal acres possible. Washes, roads, natural breaks will be utilized when 

possible for fire lines. Burn out operations will be conducted that burn the least acreage possible and 

what is necessary to establish a safe containment/control line. Unburned islands will not be intentional 

burned unless they pose a risk to the fire line.

Heavy equipment will only be used in consultation with the field office manager or designated resource 

advisor. Fire engines and support vehicles will minimize off road travel and remain on existing roads 

when possible depending on the fire situation.

Utilize Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics ―MIST‖ where applicable (ACECs, wilderness areas, 

fragile desert ecosystems etc). ―MIST‖ Guidelines are found in the 2004 ―Interagency Standards for Fire 

and Fire Aviation Operations,‖ Chapter 11, Incident Management, Appendix 11-5 on page 11-31. 

In established waterways, stock ponds, creeks, etc. the use of fire retardants (slurry, foam, etc.) is to be 

minimized as they may harm this sensitive environment. Avoid aerial or ground application of retardant 

or foam within 300 feet of waterways. Guidance on the use of retardants and foam can be found in the 

2004 ―Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations,‖ Chapter 12, Suppression Chemicals 

& Delivery Systems, Section E, Environmental Guidelines for Delivery of Retardant or Foam near 

Waterways.

Surface disturbing fire/fuels suppression activities should be minimized for archaeological sites. 

Camps, staging areas etc will be located in areas that will provide for the least disturbance of the 

landscape. 

A resource advisor will be assigned to coordinate resource concerns with the incident commander. 

Management strategies and action points will be based on fire activity and location. Normally, specific 

actions or combinations of actions will be determined on site by the incident commander or fire use 

manager. These actions could include:

Monitoring and holding actions to check or confine spread

Monitoring with pre-planned contingency actions 

Monitoring actions

Control and extinguishment 

Criteria to use for developing a management response:

Risk to firefighters and public health and safety

Land and Resource Management Objectives

Weather
Appendix L

1017

Fuel Conditions

Threats and values to be protected

Cost efficiencies

FMU #2 Description- PD Desert North of Interstate 10

a) Characteristics

This FMU consists of approximately 718,229 acres of public lands; the landscapes are typical of Sonoran 

Desert section of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The area is characterized by flood plains, 

basin floors, stream terraces, alluvial fans, fan terraces and steep, rocky mountains that rise abruptly from 

the fans. Elevation ranges from 420 feet to more than 4000 feet on the higher mountains.

Winters are mild and summers are hot and dry, the two main periods of rainfall are during the last half of 

summer and in early winter. Most of the area is desert rangeland, and farming is an important industry on 

the private lands found in the area, the main crops are cotton, alfalfa and vegetables and grains.

Vegetation is typical of the Sonoran Desert with a great diversity of plants including creosote bush, palo 

verde, ironwood and a variety of cacti. Grasses and forbs do not constitute a large volume of the plant 

community but there are many species that may be present, including, threeawn, galleta, bush muhly. 

Many of the drainages associated with the Gila River are dominated or are invaded by tamarisk or 

commonly known as salt cedar.

Prehistoric and historic aboriginal groups generally used desert mountains for wild food procurement, and 

there is evidence of archaeological sites.

Many species of wildlife inhabit the area including mule deer, bighorn sheep, javelina, cottontail and jack 

rabbits, and a variety of songbirds and raptors.

b) Fire History

Historical fire frequency is greater than 250-year return interval. Between 1980 and 2003, 255 fires 

started on BLM-administered public lands. These fires burned an estimated 17,876 acres. Most of the area 

burned was Sonoran Desert ecosystem. The largest fire burned 6200 acres. Average fire size was 71.5 

acres. There have been 27 large fires (100-plus acres) during this time period. 

c) Fire Regime/Condition Class

This unit is vegetated with Sonoran Desert scrub and is classified in Fire Regime III (35-100+ 

year frequency, mixed severity). Low elevation (below 2000‘) areas within this unit are 

primarily in condition class 1. Most areas above 2000‘ in elevation are now in condition class 2 

due to the presence of exotic annual grasses in upland areas and saltcedar/tamarisk along riparian 

corridors.

d) Values at Risk
Appendix L

1018

Air Quality – The metropolitan area of Phoenix is a PM10, Carbon Monoxide, and Ozone non-attainment 

area. Smoke from wildfire and prescribed fire within a sixty mile radius can contribute to the degradation 

of this air shed. 

ACECs – Tule Creek.

T&E, Sensitive,Wildlife/Plant Species – includes Gila topminnow (Tule Creek), yellow-billed cuckoo, 

lowland leopard frog, BLM Sensitive species (Native fishes), Category 2 & 3 Sonoran desert tortoise 

habitat, desert bighorn sheep.

Recreation – Important recreation sites in this FMU include: the Harquahala Mountain Summit Road 

National Backcountry Byway and Staging Area; the Smithsonian Harquahala Peak Smithsonian Solar 

Observation Interpretative Area; the Harquahala Peak Pack Trail (a state and national historic trail); the 

Vulture Peak trail and two trailheads; the Hassayampa River Riparian Area (on ADOT property), OHV in 

Vulture Mountains, Hieroglyphic Mountains and Black Canyon areas; and, the Black Canyon Trail and 

Emery Henderson Trailhead. Dispersed and unstructured recreation resource opportunities dependent on 

natural resources such as hunting, OHV driving, sightseeing, hiking, camping, etc. Outstanding primitive 

recreation and solitude opportunities within the Harquahala Mountains, Big Horn Mountains, 

Hummingbird Springs, Hassayampa River Canyon and Hells Canyon Wilderness Areas.

Cultural Resources – Sites include the historic Harquahala Peak Observatory; the Monte Cristo Mine 

north of Wickenburg; the historic Vulture City cemetery; the historic cemetery and stone structures (with 

wooden components) at Weaver; other historic mines in the various mountain ranges; homesteads and 

ranching features (i.e., line shacks); prehistoric trails and artifact scatters; prehistoric stone quarries; rock 

rings and alignments; and rock art, including painted designs in canyons of the Harcuvar Mountains. 

Standard mitigation measures: 

Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics. 

Utilize resource advisor and use extreme caution around historic mines. prehistoric pueblos, and 

other structures. 

Heavy equipment use is to be coordinated with the resource advisor.

Use of retardant on wooden and stone structures is discouraged, but is permissible under extreme 

conditions. 

Fire engines should be used on established roads only. 

Specific FMU mitigation measures:

Protect interpretive facilities at Harquahala Peak.

Prior to suppression actions, identify and avoid vulnerable rock art and other sites in canyons of 

the Harcuvar and Harquahala mountain ranges. 

Avoid driving over rock rings and rock alignments.

Wild Horse and Burro – Within the Lake Pleasant Herd Management Area, burros are present.

Riparian – Agua Fria River, Hassayampa River and tributaries. 

Forage production – Livestock grazing is authorized for public lands within this FMU with the 

exception of Tule Creek ACEC. 

 

e) Communities at Risk 
Appendix L

1019

FMU #2 has several communities within the unit boundaries. Some of the communities are located in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area, while others are located in remote isolated areas. There are multiple areas 

with subdivided, residential properties that are not associated with a specific community. There are also 

recreation sites, range improvements, railways, roadways, utility lines, substations and communication 

sites within the FMU that may be at risk. Prevention, education and mitigation efforts for most of the 

subdivided areas can be made through local fire departments but many will require outreach by direct 

contact. The risk level to each community is based upon fuels, topography, the current state of fire 

prevention preparedness and unique aspects of each. Above- or below-average precipitation can greatly 

affect the risk to each community and individual areas by increasing or decreasing the amount of fuel 

available to a fire. Special considerations will be made for communities with increased risk. 

The communities listed below lie within the boundaries of FMU #2 and are categorized by their 

individual average risk level.

Low Risk: 

1) Aguila 6) Phoenix 

2) Circle City 7) Skull Valley 

3) Gila Bend 8) Wickenburg

4) Hillside 9) Wittmann 

 5) Morristown

Moderate Risk:

 1) Congress 3) Stanton

 2) New River 

High Risk:

 1) Black Canyon City 2) Rock Springs

Fire Management Objectives

The desired Fire Management Objective is to limit the number of burned acres and to suppress all fires 

90% of the time at or below 150 acres. Sonoran Desert vegetation types are not considered dependent or 

adapted to fire. Fires within this vegetation type can significantly alter vegetation composition and the 

ecosystem as a whole. Desert vegetation such as saguaro cactus, palo verde, organ pipe cactus, and 

creosote are very susceptible to fire and may take as long as a century to reestablish. Recurring fires 

would totally eliminate these species from the vegetative community. Sonoran Desert vegetation is more 

susceptible to larger and more frequent fires due to increasing human starts and naturalized exotic 

vegetation such as red brome. 

Fire in the Sonoran Desert vegetation type may negatively impact threatened or endangered wildlife plant 

species such as cactus ferruginous pygmy owls and lesser long-nosed bats. Other sensitive species such 

as desert tortoise and Acuna Valley pineapple cactus may also be negatively impacted.
Appendix L

1020

Fire Management Strategies

a) Suppression

Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in all fire management strategies and suppression actions. 

All other applicable suppression strategies are included in section III-D, Fire Management Strategies 

Common to All FMUs.

Health and Safety 

Safety hazards to firefighters are extreme temperatures (daytime 115 to 130 degrees; nighttime 

temperatures range from 90 to 100 degrees, and relative humidity runs 5 to 10 percent), open and hidden 

mine shafts and pits are present, hazardous materials dump sites, chemical and pesticide dumping. 

Venomous animals/insects, low-level military aircraft training routes, recreational shooting and OHV use 

is common and presents a safety concern. 

Access 

Access by vehicles into this FMU is good off of numerous dirt roads. Depending on the fire location 

crews may have short hikes to reach the fire.

Fire Behavior 

The Sonoran Desert is mostly barren and wildfire fuels types consists of grass, annuals and perennials 

with little to no brush cover. Fuels in the desert depend on heavy winter and early spring moisture or 

fuels that carry over from the previous year's growing season. Above-average moisture usually results in 

an abundance of annual fuels.

Fires in the desert usually do not go beyond the first burning period due to non continuous fuels, fuel size, 

terrain features such as washes and rocky outcroppings. In years of heavy precipitation, and where fuels 

are continuous, fires can spread rapidly through the grass and associated material. The grass fuels are 

also easily influenced by change in relative humidity. A significant increase in relative humidity and a 

decrease in temperature can quickly slow or extinguish a fire.

Desert Fuel types are represented by NFDRS fuel model A and NFFL fuel model 1.

Suppression tactics

Suppression strategies and tactics in this fuel type are usually direct attack using hand crews, engines 

where possible and helicopter dropping water to knock down the fire edge, patrol and mop up. Fires in 

the desert usually are quickly contained in the first burning period. 

Rate of spread - Low to high (depending on fuel continuity)

Flame length - Depending on wind, one to four feet

Resistance to control - low to moderate

Acceptable wildfire size is up to 300 acres at Fire Intensity Level (FIL) 1 and 150 acres for all others 

FILs. 

FIL 1- 0-2 ft FL, FIL 2 - 2-4 ft FL, FIL 3 - 4-6 ft FL, FIL 4 - 6-8 ft FL, FIL 5 - 8-12 ft FL, 
Appendix L

1021

FIL 6 -12 + ft FL,

b) Wildland Fire Use

Wildland fire use is not desired. Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment Allocation 2 – Non Wildland Fire 

Use: Areas not suitable for wildland fire use for resource benefit. Reference pages 13-15 of this FMP.

c) Prescribed Fire

Native vegetation in this Fire Management Unit is not fire dependant or fire adapted. In limited instances 

prescribed fire may be used to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations along riparian corridors where the 

presence of saltcedar/tamarisk and other undesirable species poses a significant risk to improvements or 

critical habitat. Prescribed fire may be used as a means of fuel reduction following mechanical 

treatments. 

d) Non-Fire Fuels Treatments

Mechanical thinning or vegetation removal may be conducted to reduce the presence of tamarisk and 

other undesirable hazardous vegetation along riparian corridors. Mechanical treatment of upland areas 

will be limited to treating WUI areas at risk during years of high annual grass production. 

e) Post Fire Restoration and Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation and restoration efforts may be needed for ecological sites other than Sonoran Desert. 

f) Community Protection/Community Assistance

Prevention, education and mitigation efforts for FMU #2 include utilizing the local news media to provide 

fire prevention information and updates to the public, building strong collaborative relationships with 

local governments and fire departments, performing school presentations, attending events/parades and 

develop partnerships with home owner organizations, permitees and other groups to assist communities in 

reducing the risk from wildfire.

FMU # 3 Description- PD Wilderness Areas

a) Characteristics

This FMU consists of approximately 346,833 acres of public lands; the landscapes are typical of Sonoran 

Desert section of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The area is characterized by flood plains, 

basin floors, stream terraces, alluvial fans, fan terraces and steep, rocky mountains that rise abruptly from 

the fans. Elevation ranges from 420 feet to more than 4000 feet on the higher mountains.

The wilderness areas provide a standard of solitude and naturalness that ranges from good to outstanding. 

They contain little to no surface disturbance other than former vehicle ways, and provide visitors with an 

excellent opportunity to provide solitude experience.
Appendix L

1022

Winters are mild and summers are hot and dry, the two main periods of rainfall are during the last half of 

summer and in early winter. Most of the area is desert rangeland, and farming is an important industry on 

the private lands found in the area, the main crops are cotton, alfalfa and vegetables and grains.

Vegetation is typical of the Sonoran Desert with a great diversity of plants including creosote bush, palo 

verde, ironwood and variety of cacti. Grasses and forbs do not constitute a large volume of the 

community but there are many species that may be present including, threeawn, galleta, bush muhly.

Prehistoric and historic aboriginal groups generally used desert mountains for wild food procurement, and 

there is evidence of archaeological sites.

Many species of wildlife inhabit the area including mule deer, bighorn sheep, javelina, cottontail and jack 

rabbits, and a variety of songbirds and raptors.

Phoenix District Wilderness Areas

Big Horn Mountains Wilderness 21,000 ac 

Harquahala Mountains Wilderness 22,880 ac 

Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness*11,840 ac 

Hells Canyon Wilderness* 9,900 ac 

Hummingbird Springs Wilderness 31,200 ac 

b) Fire History

Historical fire frequency is greater than 250-year return interval. Between 1980 and 2003, 11 fires started 

on BLM-administered public lands. These fires burned an estimated 7800 acres. Most of the area burned 

was Sonoran Desert ecosystem. The largest fire burned 4824 acres. Average fire size was 650 acres. There 

have been three large fires of 1000-plus acres during this time period

c) Fire Regime/Condition Class

Wilderness areas managed by the Phoenix District are vegetated with Sonoran desert scrub and are 

classified in Fire Regime III (35-100+ year frequency, mixed severity). Low elevation (below 2000‘) 

areas within this unit are primarily in condition class 1. Most areas above 2000‘ in elevation are now in 

condition class 2 due to the presence of exotic annual grasses in upland areas. Small portions of the 

Harquahala Mountains and Hassayampa River Canyon wilderness areas are vegetated with interior 

chaparral. These areas would be classified in Fire Regime IV (35-100+ year frequency, stand replacement 

severity), and condition class 2. 

d) Values at Risk

Air Quality - Wilderness areas have Class II air quality designation.

ACECs - None

T&E, Sensitive, Wildlife/Plant Species – includes lesser long-nosed bat foraging habitat, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Wilderness South of I-10), lowland leopard frog, BLM Sensitive 

species (bats), Category 1, 2 & 3 Sonoran desert tortoise habitat, desert bighorn sheep, mule deer.
Appendix L

1023

Recreation – Natural landscapes and functioning Sonoran Desert ecosystems. Outstanding riparian areas 

within the Hells Canyon, Hassayampa River Canyon and Harquahala Mountains wildernesses. 

Cultural Resources – Sites include prehistoric and historic artifact scatters, prehistoric camps, rock art, 

roasting pits, homesteads, ranching features, and mines. 

Standard mitigation measures: 

Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics. 

Utilize resource advisor and use extreme caution around historic mines, prehistoric pueblos, and 

other structures. 

Bulldozers or heavy equipment use will be coordinated with the resource advisor and approved 

by the Field Office Manager. 

Use of retardant on wooden and stone structures is discouraged, but is permissible under extreme 

conditions. 

Specific FMU mitigation measures:

Exercise extra caution near springs, where there tends to be a higher density of cultural resources. 

Riparian – Hassayampa River drainage. 

 Forage production – Livestock grazing is authorized for public lands within this FMU.

e) Communities at Risk

There are no communities located within the boundaries of FMU #3. There are communities located in 

FMUs adjacent to FMU #3. Those communities are addressed within the appropriate FMU descriptions.

Fire Management Objectives

The desired Fire Management Objective within the wilderness areas is to limit the number of burned acres 

and to suppress all fires 90% of the time at or below 150 acres. These wilderness areas are typically 

Sonoran Desert vegetation types and are not considered dependent or adapted to fire. Fires within this 

vegetation type can significantly alter vegetation composition and the ecosystem as a whole. Desert 

vegetation such as saguaro cactus, palo verdes, organ pipe cactus, and creosote are very susceptible to fire 

and may take as long as a century to reestablish. Recurring fires would totally eliminate these species 

from the vegetative community. Sonoran Desert vegetation is more susceptible to larger and more 

frequent fires due to increasing human starts and naturalized exotic vegetation such as red brome. 

Wilderness Fire Guidance

Phoenix District Interim Guidance for Fire Suppression in Wilderness 1991, modified 2001.This plan 

provides interim guidance for fire suppression actions in Phoenix/Kingman fire management zone 

wilderness areas. This plan provides guidance on special legal and administrative constraints, resource 

management considerations, fire suppression measures, and coordination with BLM management. This 

interim suppression guidance will be followed until wilderness management plans are completed for each 

wilderness areas. 

This interim guidance follows BLM management Policy for Management of Designated Wilderness 

Areas; 43 CFR Part 8560; Handbooks 8560-1; WO IM 90-221 – Revisions to the 8560 Manual 
Appendix L

1024

Management of Designated Wilderness Areas Relating to Fire Management Policy; 910 DM 1 – Wildland 

Fire Suppression and Management. 

Wilderness Management Plans (General Management Section).

The interim suppression guidance will be followed until wilderness management plans are completed for 

these wilderness areas. Big Horn Mountains Wilderness 21,000 ac, Harquahala Mountains Wilderness 

22,880 ac and Hummingbird Springs Wilderness 31,200 ac. 

Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness*11,840 ac 

Hassayampa River WMP 1996

Fire - The six recorded fires in the wilderness since 1980 burned more than 4000 acres. The Hassayampa 

River Canyon consists primarily of desert scrub, oak chaparral and riparian fuel. Annual fuel 

accumulation in the desert scrub is generated by winter season precipitation. During years of high 

precipitation, the annual fuels can be abundant and significantly increase the fuel loading and fire 

potential. Fires are best characterized as fast-moving fires of medium intensity. Arizona chaparral either 

burns fiercely or does not burn at all; there seems to be no gradation in between. Conditions must be 

suitable for generating rapid spread before fire will propagate. Resistance to control is moderate to very 

high.

Hells Canyon Wilderness* 9900 ac 

Hells Canyon WMP 1995

Fire - Historically, fires within the wilderness areas are rare. Hells Canyon consists of primarily desert 

shrub fuels. Annual fuel accumulation is generated by winter season precipitation. During years of high 

precipitation, the annual fuels can be abundant and significantly increase the fuel loading and fire 

potential. Fires are best characterized as fast moving fires of medium intensity.

Since 1980 two fires have been known to have occurred within the wilderness

Fire Management Strategies

a) Suppression

Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in all fire management strategies and suppression actions. 

In wilderness areas, fire management strategies and tactics will be utilized that will limit impacts on 

wilderness values and minimize any surface disturbance. Wilderness suppression objectives are to 

minimize acres burned, the damage done to wilderness resource values by utilizing ―light hands on the 

land.‖ All other applicable suppression strategies are included in section III-D, Fire Management 

Strategies Common to All FMUs.

Health and Safety

Safety hazard to firefighters are extreme temperatures (daytime 115 to 130 degrees; nighttime 

temperatures range from 90 to 100 degrees, and relative humidity runs 5 to 10 percent), venomous 

animals/insects, low-level military aircraft training routes, etc. 

Access

Access by vehicles into this FMU is only on approved cherry-stemmed roads. Depending on the fire 

location crews may have long hikes to reach the fire. If the field office manager cannot be contacted 

within a 15-minute notification window after arrival of the incident commander at the fire, the incident 
Appendix L

1025

commander has the discretion to authorize, helicopter landings in wilderness for transporting crews, the 

use of airtankers and helicopter water bucket drops.

Fire Behavior

The Sonoran Desert is mostly barren and wildfire fuels types consists of grass, annuals and perennials 

with little to no brush cover. Fuels in the desert depend on heavy winter and early spring moisture or 

fuels that carry over from the previous year's growing season. Above-average moisture usually results in 

an abundance of annual fuels.

Fires in the desert usually do not go beyond the first burning period due to non continuous fuels, fuel size, 

terrain features such as washes and rocky outcroppings. In of heavy precipitation and 

where fuels are continuous fires can spread rapidly through the grass and associated material. The grass 

fuels are also easily influenced by change in relative humidity. A significant increase in relative humidity 

and a decrease in temperature can quickly slow or extinguish a fire.

Desert Fuel types are represented by NFDRS fuel model A and NFFL fuel model 1.

Suppression tactics

Suppression strategies and tactics in this fuel type are usually direct attack using hand crews, engines 

where possible and helicopter water drops to knock down the fire edge, patrolling and mop up. Fires in 

the desert usually are quickly contained in the first burning period. 

Rate of spread - Low to high (depending on fuel continuity)

Flame length - Depending on wind, one to four feet

Resistance to control - low to moderate

Acceptable wildfire size is up to 300 acres at Fire Intensity Level (FIL) 1 and 150 acres for all others FIL. 

FIL 1- 0-2 ft FL, FIL 2 - 2-4 ft FL, FIL 3 - 4-6 ft FL, FIL 4 - 6-8 ft FL, FIL 5 - 8-12 ft FL, 

FIL 6 -12 + ft FL

b) Wildland Fire Use 

Fire use is not a desired management use in these wilderness areas. Minimum impact suppression tactics 

and appropriate management response will be used to ensure for firefighter and public safety first and 

minimize impacts to natural resources. 

Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment Allocation 2 – Non Wildland Fire Use: Areas not suitable for 

wildland fire use for resource benefit. Reference pages 13-15 of this FMP. The Phoenix District has 

completed all Wilderness Management Plans except for Big Horn Mountains, Harquahala Mountains 

Wilderness and Hummingbird Springs Wilderness Areas. 

c) Prescribed Fire 

Prescribed fire treatments are not anticipated within these wilderness areas, as most areas are dominated 

by non-fire adapted native vegetation. 
Appendix L

1026

d) Non-Fire Fuels Treatments

Fuels treatments are not anticipated for these areas. However, special circumstances that threaten the 

integrity of the wilderness environment could facilitate the need for future fuels treatment as deemed 

necessary by resource specialists. 

e) Post Fire Restoration and Rehabilitation

Post Fire Restoration and Rehabilitation is not applicable in this type of ecosystem. Restoration and 

rehabilitation efforts may result in more damage to the landscape

f) Community Protection/Community Assistance

Prevention and mitigation efforts for FMU #3 include public education by utilizing local media outlets, 

educational signing, outreach to public land use groups, prevention patrols and contacts.

FMU # 4 Description- PD Bradshaws 3500’ North

a) Characteristics

This FMU consists of approximately 104,807 acres of public lands; the landscapes are typical of the 

Mexican Highlands and Sonoran Desert sections of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The 

area is characterized by a series of moderately steep and steep soils on hills and mountains and nearly 

level to strongly sloping soils on alluvial plains. Elevation ranges from 3500 feet to more than 8000 feet 

on the higher mountains near Crown King.

Winters are mild and summers are hot and dry, the two main periods of rainfall are during the last half of 

summer and in early winter. Most of the area is desert rangeland, and much of the area is used for 

livestock grazing, although annual authorizations have declined in the past few years due to economic 

reasons compounded by extensive drought. The area is popular with recreationists, including hikers and 

off-highway vehicle enthusiasts. 

Vegetation varies from a sparse cover of desert shrubs at lower elevations to a chaparral, grass or pinyonpine cover in the intermediate areas. Marked differences in vegetation occur within short distances 

because of the wide variance in soils, elevation, precipitation, and temperature.

Prehistoric and historic aboriginal groups generally used desert mountains for wild food procurement, and 

there is evidence of archaeological sites.

Many species of wildlife inhabit the area including mule deer, bear, mountain lion, javelina, cottontail and 

jack rabbits, squirrels and a variety of songbirds and raptors.

b) Fire History

Historical fire frequency 35 to 100-plus-year return interval, Between 1980 and 2003, 146 fires started on 

BLM-administered public lands. These fires burned an estimated 14,735 acres. Most of the area burned 

was chaparral plant communities. The largest fire burned 5000 acres. Average fire size was 99.6 acres.

There have been 18 large fires (100-plus acres) during this time period.
Appendix L

1027

c) Fire Regime/Condition Class

The chaparral vegetative community that dominates this fire management unit is represented by fire 

regime 4 (35-100+ year frequency, stand replacement). Current fire condition class is 2, due to the lack 

of fires having occurred in this area in the recent past. The current condition is overrepresentation of oldage-class chaparral and lack of mixed age class mosaic. 

d) Values at Risk

Air Quality - No non-attainment or special status areas occur within this FMU. 

ACECs – None

T&E, Sensitive, Wildlife/Plant Species – includes BLM Sensitive species (Native fishes, bats), lowland 

leopard frog, Category 2 & 3 Sonoran desert tortoise habitat.

Recreation – OHV use, hunting and camping uses.

Cultural Resources– Sites include historic mines and associated features, which could include ―ghost 

towns,‖ historic homestead and ranching features; prehistoric artifact scatters; rock art; roasting pits; and 

prehistoric stone structures on hilltops. 

Standard mitigation measures: 

Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics. 

Utilize resource advisor, use extreme caution around historic mines, prehistoric pueblos, and 

other structures. 

Bulldozers or heavy equipment use is to be coordinated with the resource advisor. 

Use of retardant on wooden and stone structures is discouraged, but is permissible under extreme 

conditions. 

Fire engines should be used on established roads only. 

Specific FMU mitigation measures:

Identify the locations of flammable structures through ground or aerial reconnaissance surveys. 

Exercise extra caution near springs, which tend to be associated with a higher density of cultural 

resources. 

Riparian – Tributaries of the Hassayampa and Agua Fria rivers.

Forage production – Livestock grazing is authorized for public lands within this FMU.

e) Communities at Risk

FMU #4 has several communities within the unit boundaries. There are multiple areas with sub-divided, 

residential properties that are not associated with a specific community. There are also recreation sites, 

range improvements, railways, roadways, utility lines, substations and communication sites within the 

FMU that may be at risk. Prevention, education and mitigation efforts for most of the subdivided areas 

can be made through local fire departments but many will require outreach by direct contact. The risk 

level to each community is based upon fuels, topography, the current state of fire prevention preparedness 

and unique aspects of each. Above- or below-average precipitation can greatly affect the risk to each 
Appendix L

1028

community and individual areas by increasing or decreasing the amount of fuel available to a fire. 

Special considerations will be made for communities with increased risk. 

The communities listed below lie within the boundaries of FMU #4 and are categorized by their 

individual average risk level.

Moderate Risk:

 1) Dewey 4) Peeples Valley

 2) Humboldt 5) Wilhoit

 3) Kirkland Junction

High Risk:

 1) Cordes Junction 3) Spring Valley

 2) Mayer 4) Yarnell

Fire Management Objectives

In chaparral vegetative type the desired Fire Management Objective is to suppress all fire 90% of the time 

at or below 100 acres. No more than 2,000 acres per year or 20,000 acres per decade in this polygon 

from wildfire or prescribed fire. The chaparral on the north side of the Bradshaw‘s is more typical of 

interior chaparral and probably has a natural fire cycle of once every 25 years or less. Fires in this area 

should not exceed an average of 2,000 acres of BLM-administered land per year. 

Chaparral as a general vegetation type evolved with fire as a natural component of the ecosystem and is 

maintained in a healthy state by regular burning. The chaparral in the Phoenix District area is more open 

and has a mixture of upper Sonoran Desert vegetation. Natural fires in these areas were probably less 

common than typically occur in chaparral vegetation in general.

Desert tortoise habitat extends in to the chaparral vegetation type. Depending on the season and weather 

tortoise and their habitat can be very susceptible to fires. Small cool fires during the right season and 

under the right weather conditions would reduce fuel loads, and help alleviate the risk of large hot fires 

that would severely impact tortoise and their habitat. Any prescribed burn or let-burn situation would 

have to be carefully considered to prevent negative impacts to desert tortoise and Sonoran Desert 

vegetation. 

Although there are no federally listed species associated with chaparral vegetation type, if a fire was to 

burn out of the chaparral into Sonoran Desert vegetation it could impact lesser long-nosed bats and cactus 

ferruginous pygmy owls.

Resource constraints during fire suppression actions are: Suppression tactics and use of heavy equipment 

(dozers) will be utilized that limit damage or disturbance to the habitat and landscape. 

A portion of this FMU also includes the urban interface near Cordes Junction; this area is a full 

suppression area. The desired Fire Management Objective is to suppress all fire 90% of the time at or 

below 150 acres. 

Other grassland vegetation exists in the Phoenix District area most notably in the vicinity of Cordes 

Junction and Congress. However, due to concerns, such as intermingled ownership patterns, association 

with Sonoran Desert vegetation in the vicinity of Congress, desert tortoise habitat; any action other than 

full suppression would have to be carefully considered. 
Appendix L

1029

Fire Management Strategies

a) Suppression

Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in all fire management strategies and suppression actions. 

In the grasslands and lower elevations of the FMU that transactions with association with Sonoran Desert 

vegetation types Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics ―MIST‖ will be utilized that limit damage or 

disturbance to the habitat and landscape.

In the area above 3500 feet, fires will be contained at the minimal acres possible. Washes, roads, natural 

breaks will be utilized when possible for fire lines. Burn out operations will be conducted that burn the 

least acreage possible to establish a safe containment/control line. Unburned islands will not be 

intentionally burned unless they pose a risk to the fire line. Heavy equipment such as dozers can be used

if necessary in the chaparral vegetation with resource advisor consultation. In the Cordes Junction and 

Congress grasslands heavy equipment use should be in consultation with the resource advisor. Fire 

engines and support vehicles should stay as much as possible on existing roads and paths. 

All other applicable suppression strategies are included in section III-D, Fire Management Strategies 

Common to All FMUs.

Health and Safety 

Safety hazards to firefighters are extreme temperatures (daytime 90 to 100 degrees; nighttime 

temperatures range from 60 to 75 degrees, and relative humidity runs 5 to15 percent), open and hidden 

mine shafts and pits are present, venomous animals/insects, as well as hazardous materials and dump sites 

containing hazardous chemicals, pesticide, and tires. Low-level military aircraft training routes, 

recreational shooting, and OHV use is prevalent and presents a safety concern. In the Bradshaw 

Mountains, steep terrain is a hazard, slopes average 30 to 40 percent and increase up to 60 percent. The 

thick chaparral fuel type limits escape routes and safety zones. 

Access 

Access by vehicles into this FMU is limited due to steepness of grade and road conditions. The number 

of existing roads into this FMU is few. Travel time into this FMU can exceed one and one-half hours. 

Depending on the fire location crews may either have a long hike or require helicopter shuttle (if helispots 

are available) to reach fire location.

Fire Behavior 

The Bradshaw Mountains above 3500 feet are dominated by Arizona interior oak chaparral (scrub oak, 

ceanothus, manzanita, sumac and mahogany). Fire behavior in Arizona oak chaparral should not be 

underestimated. Under certain conditions, it can burn as intensely as California chaparral. 

Arizona chaparral either burns fiercely or does not burn at all; there seems to be no graduation. The 

critical rate of spread threshold in chaparral to sustain itself is 20 or more feet per minute. Conditions 

must be suitable for generating spread at or above this rate before fire will spread.
Appendix L

1030

In very high to extreme burning conditions, flame lengths up to 50 feet are common. Spotting up to 1/4 

mile and erratic fire behavior may occur. At times, firestorms, firewhirls and major blow-ups could occur 

instantaneously. High rates of spread of 45 feet per minute would not be unusual. Extreme fire behavior 

can occur with live fuel moistures below 90%,

Grass fuel types are represented by NFDRS fuel model A and NFFL fuel model 1.

Chaparral fuel types are represented by NFDRS fuel model F and NFFL fuel model 4 and 6.

Suppression strategies and tactics in grass fuel type are usually direct attack using hand crews, engines 

where possible and helicopter dropping water to knock down the fire edge. Fires in the grass usually are 

quickly contained. Occasional fires in this fuel type can go into multiple burning periods. 

Suppression tactics

Suppression strategies and tactics in chaparral fuel type are dependent on fire intensity. Low intensity 

fires; allow for direct attack. High intensity fires; suppression strategies and tactics in chaparral fuel type 

are usually indirect. Fires in the chaparral fuel type usually go into multiple burning periods. 

Grass Fuel 

Rate of spread - Low to high 

Flame length - Depending on wind, one to four feet

Resistance to control - low to moderate

Chaparral Fuel 

Rate of spread - moderate to very high 

Flame length - 20 to 50 ft plus

Resistance to control - moderate to very high

Bradshaw/Yarnell - Acceptable wildfire size is up to 2000 acres at Fire Intensity Level (FIL) 1 and 100 

acres for all others FIL 2-6.

Cordes Junction - Acceptable wildfire size is up to 300 acres at Fire Intensity Level (FIL) 1 and 150 acres 

for all others FIL 2-6.

FIL 1- 0-2 ft FL, FIL 2 - 2-4 ft FL, FIL 3 - 4-6 ft FL, FIL 4 - 6-8 ft FL, FIL 5 - 8-12 ft FL, 

FIL 6 -12 + ft FL
Appendix L

1031

b) Wildland Fire Use 

Portions of the Weaver and Bradshaw mountains may be analyzed for wildland fire use at a future date. 

Wildland fire use is a viable management consideration for the chaparral vegetative community that 

covers much of this fire management zone. Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment Allocation 1 –

Wildland Fire Use: Areas suitable for wildland fire use for resource benefit. Reference pages 13-15 of this 

FMP. 

c) Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire will be used to treat hazardous fuel accumulations in chaparral vegetation in the Weaver 

and Bradshaw mountains. 

The prescribed fire resource objectives in the chaparral community would be to use fire to remove 

decadent chaparral and stimulate regrowth for both wildlife and livestock. Prescribed fire in the 

Bradshaws would be limited to 2000 acres per year. This is due to adjacent landownership (ie National 

Forest) and topography features.

d) Non-Fire Fuels Treatments

Mechanical, biological, or chemical treatments may be applied where approved to meet resource and fire 

management objectives. Non-fire fuels treatments will be utilized in WUI areas or those areas where 

prescribed fire is not a safe and viable means of treatment. 

e) Post Fire Restoration and Rehabilitation

Potential exists for emergency restoration and stabilization efforts.

f) Community Protection/Community Assistance

Prevention, education and mitigation efforts for FMU #4 include utilizing the local news media to provide 

fire prevention information and updates to the public, building strong collaborative relationships with 

local governments and fire departments, performing school presentations, attending events/parades and 

develop partnerships with home owner organizations, permitees and other groups to assist communities in 

reducing the risk from wildfire. 

FMU # 5 Description- PD Agua Fria National Monument

a) Characteristics

This FMU consists of approximately 71,000 acres of public lands; the landscapes are typical of the 

Mexican Highlands and Sonoran Desert sections of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The 

area is characterized by three landforms: the relatively narrow river channel and associated drainages, 

broad benches that border the river and drainages, and low hills and mountains found within short 

proximity of the drainage. Elevation ranges from 2000 feet to 4000 feet at the top of Joe‘s Hill.
Appendix L

1032

The Agua Fria National Monument is one of the most significant systems of prehistoric sites in the 

American Southwest. It contains more than 400 archaeological sites, spanning some 2,000 years of 

human history. Remnants of stone pueblos, some containing more than 100 rooms represent a system of

communities with economic and social ties. There are numerous petroglyphs commonly called rock art 

located on the monument with many wildlife and human figures. Networks of hilltop structures may have 

acted as a communication system and structures sitting at the edges of steep canyons are though to have 

provided defense against invaders.

Vegetation varies from a large cover of desert shrubs at lower elevations on the south end of the 

monuments to some of the best examples of a tobosa grassland found in the Southwest. Lush riparian 

forests are along the Agua Fria River and its tributaries and include cottonwood, black walnut, and 

sycamore. Marked differences in vegetation occur within short distances because of the wide variance in 

soils, elevation, precipitation, and temperature.

Many species of wildlife inhabit the area including pronghorn antelope, mule deer, bear, mountain lion, 

javelina, cottontail and jack rabbits, squirrels. The river corridor is one of the best habitats for songbirds 

and raptors within this part of Arizona.

Winters are mild and summers are hot and dry, the two main periods of rainfall are during the last half of 

summer and in early winter. 

b) Fire History

Historical fire frequency is zero to 35-year return interval, between 1980 and 2003, 101 fires started on 

BLM-administered public lands. These fires burned an estimated 26,728 acres. Most of the area burned 

was tobosa grasslands. The largest fire burned 6000 acres. Average fire size was 245.2 acres. There have 

been 12 large (100-plus acres) fires during this time period.

c) Fire Regime/Condition Class 

Tobosa grasslands can be classified as a fire regime 2 (zero to 35-year frequency, stand replacement 

severity). Grasslands on the Agua Fria National Monument are currently classified as condition class 2. 

This rating is due primarily to the invasion of woody plant species (juniper, mesquite, snakeweed, prickly 

pear) and the presence of introduced annuals and noxious weeds. 

d) Values at Risk

Air Quality – No non-attainment or special status areas occur in this FMU. 

ACECs - Larry Canyon, Lousy Canyon

T&E, Sensitive, Wildlife/Plant Species–includes Gila topminnow, desert pupfish, Gila chub, yellowbilled cuckoo, BLM Sensitive species (Native fishes), pronghorn. 

Recreation - Proposed Wild and Scenic River corridor 1⁄4 mile wide on the Agua Fria River north and 

south of Bloody Basin Road. Hiking and equestrian use at Badger Springs Wash. Dispersed and 

unstructured recreation resource opportunities dependent on natural resources such as hunting, OHV 

driving, sightseeing, hiking, camping, etc. Outstanding primitive recreation opportunities within the 

Agua Fria River canyon.
Appendix L

1033

Cultural Resources: 

Sites include prehistoric stone pueblos and structures, including from one to more than a hundred 

rooms.

stone structures on hilltops.

artifact scatters roasting pits; 

agricultural features, such as terraces bordered by rock alignments; 

rock art sites; 

and historic mines and ranching-related sites. 

Standard mitigation measures: 

Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics. 

Utilize resource advisor and use extreme caution near historic mines, prehistoric pueblos, and 

other structures. 

Bulldozers or heavy equipment use is to be coordinated with the resource advisor.

The use of retardant on wooden and stone structures is discouraged, but is permissible under 

extreme conditions. 

Fire engines should be used on established roads only. 

Specific FMU mitigation measures: 

Minimize surface disturbing activities and off-road driving. 

Implement measures to protect rock art, if needed, in areas of relatively dense vegetation. Avoid 

igniting prescribed burns within sites. 

If it is necessary to extract water from the Agua Fria River, avoid damage to the rock flume 

structure that transmitted water to the historic Richinbar Mine; this site is situated in the river 

canyon, between Badger Springs and Perry Tank Canyon. 

Given the importance of the monument‘s cultural resources, an archaeologist should play a key 

role in the development of fire and fuels management plans. 

Riparian – Agua Fria River and tributaries. 

Forage production – Livestock grazing is authorized for public lands within this FMU with the exception 

of Larry and Lousy Canyons ACEC. 

e) Communities at Risk

There are no communities located within the boundaries of FMU #5. There are communities located in 

adjacent FMUs. Those communities are addressed within the appropriate FMU descriptions.

Fire Management Objectives

Agua Fria Grasslands is a area where fire is desired to manage the ecosystem. Suppress wildfires at Fire 

Intensity Level (FIL) 1-6 to 1000 acres or less 90% of the time. Size is limited to assist in creating a 

mosaic pattern within the grasslands. Allow for up to 8,000 acres per year or 80,000 per decade of burned

acres through wildfire or prescribed fire at any fire intensity level.

The Agua Fria Grassland is one area where fire has been recognized as a primary tool in natural resource 

management and has an interagency cooperative burn plan in place and functioning. . The BLM plan 

was written and approved in 1994, the three agencies that manage the Agua Fria Grasslands (167,000 
Appendix L

1034

acres) are the BLM Phoenix (42,000 acres), Tonto (10,000 acres) and Prescott National Forests (115,000 

acres). The resource objectives is to use prescribed fire as a management tool to: increase forage quality 

for pronghorn antelope and livestock, increase antelope fawn survival, reduce the risk of resource 

damaging wildfires and maintain the grassland component of the Agua Fria Grassland ecosystem. Burn 

cycle rotation on BLM land is five to 10 years. The grassland vegetation is Tobosa grass, Side Oats, and 

Black Gramma. The grasslands have been invaded by mesquite, Snakeweed and Juniper. The shrub 

component in the vegetation is being reduced and a serial mosaic within the grassland is being created, 

benefiting pronghorn and other wildlife species. All known and potential conflicts with this burn plan 

have been addressed and mitigated.

 

Fire Management Strategies 

a) Suppression

Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in all fire management strategies and suppression actions. 

All other applicable suppression strategies are included in section III-D, Fire Management Strategies 

Common to All FMUs.

Health and Safety 

Safety hazards to firefighters are extreme temperatures (daytime 90 to105 degrees; nighttime 

temperatures range from 70 to 90 degrees, and relative humidity runs 5 to 15 percent), open mine shafts 

and pits are present, venomous animals/insects, low-level military aircraft training routes. When fires are 

located around mesa edges, steep drop offs and rocky canyon walls are safety hazards. Recreational 

shooting, and OHV use is common and presents a safety concern. Powerlines adjacent to I-17 present a 

major concern for aviation resources and for firefighters safety. Interstate I-17 runs on the west side of 

the monument. Fires adjacent to I-17 presents a traffic concern and safety for the public and firefighters. 

Smoke obscures visibility and with traffic traveling at high speeds of 70 to 80 mph, this is a hazard to 

firefighters working in and around the Interstate. 

Access 

Access by vehicles into this FMU is good off of numerous dirt roads. Depending on the fire location 

crews may have to hike to reach the fire.

Fire Behavior 

Fuels on the monument are predominantly tobosa grass intermixed with small shrubs, cactus, snake weed 

some mesquite and junipers. The tobosa grasslands depend on heavy winter and early spring moisture or 

fuels that carry over from the previous year's growing season. Above average moisture usually results in 

an abundance of annual fuels and a continues fuel bed. Tobosa grass can grow to above two feet in 

height.

In years of heavy precipitation and where fuels are continuous fires can spread rapidly through the grass 

and associated material. The grass fuels are also easily influenced by change in relative humidity. 

A significant increase in relative humidity and a decrease in temperature can quickly slow or extinguish a 

fire. 

Fuels Grass fuel types are represented by NFDRS fuel model A and NFFL fuel model 1.
Appendix L

1035

Suppression tactics

Suppression strategies and tactics in grass fuel type are usually direct attack using hand crews, engines 

where possible, airtankers and helicopters dropping water to knock down the fire edge, patrol and mop 

up. Fires in the grass usually are quickly contained. In years of abundant grass, fires on the monument 

usually go into multiple burning periods. 

Rate of spread - Low to high (depending on fuel continuity)

Flame length - Depending on wind, one to ten feet

Resistance to control - Moderate to high

Acceptable wildfire size is up to 1000 acres at Fire Intensity Level (FIL) 1- 6. 

FIL 1- 0-2 ft FL, FIL 2 - 2-4 ft FL, FIL 3 - 4-6 ft FL, FIL 4 - 6-8 ft FL, FIL 5 - 8-12 ft FL, 

FIL 6 -12 + ft FL

b) Wildland Fire Use

Wildand Fire Use is a desired future condition on the Monument. Fire is recognized as a natural process 

in fire-adapted ecosystems and is used to achieve objectives for other resources and to maintain 

grasslands on the Agua Fria National Monument. Wildland Fire Use would be allowed from natural 

ignitions under specific prescribed criteria. Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment Allocation 1 –

Wildland Fire Use: Areas suitable for wildland fire use for resource benefit. Reference pages 13-15 of this 

FMP.

c) Prescribed Fire

Prescribed broadcast burning will be the primary method used to maintain native grasslands located on 

the Agua Fria National Monument. Pile burning of juniper may occur following hand thinning in some 

areas. Total treatment will not exceed 10,000 acres per year. 

d) Non-Fire Fuels Treatments

Hand thinning of juniper may occur in areas where grass cover is not sufficient to support broadcast 

burning. Management of the Agua Fria National Monument will limit the possibility of off-road 

mechanical treatments. Chemical and biological methods would need monument and field office manager 

approval prior to implementation. 

e) Post Fire Restoration and Rehabilitation

Historically suppression activities have followed ―MIST‖ guidelines with little surface disturbance. In the 

event of surface disturbance implementation of appropriate suppression damage rehabilitation will occur. 

f) Community Protection/Community Assistance

There are two ranch headquarters located within the Agua Fria National Monument: Box Bar and 

Horseshoe. Typically these ranches are maintained, leaving minimal threat from wildfire. 
Appendix L

1036

Prevention and mitigation efforts for FMU #5 include public education by utilizing local media outlets, 

educational signing, outreach to public land use groups, prevention patrols and contacts.
Appendix M

1037

Appendix M – Population Growth 

Model 

Spatial Growth Model 

Spatial Growth Modeling is accomplished using a contractor developed ArcView extension and can be 

done at the parcel level, or by the use of any size-assigned grid cells. The Spatial Growth Model (SGM) 

may be constructed as a set of ―nested‖ models moving from the County to the community and potentially 

the neighborhood level. The following steps are involved in the creation of an SGM, which will generate 

GIS maps for the growth study area by decade (or other preferred time step):

1. Determine the growth study area; ensure the data available spatially matches this region.

2. Determine the land available for growth with the study area. This process will create an 

initial ―land bank‖ which can exclude areas such as those designated for open space, 

agriculture, riparian preserves, etc. (This land bank can be adjusted to meet the needs of 

different groups or values, and several land banks may be created to test different policies.) 

This creates a grid file in Arc View using Spatial Analyst. Land may be assigned as a 

―zoning‖ category specifying that the model, ―assign this land sub-area to a particular type of 

growth.‖

3. Input the anticipated population growth rate, by housing type; including commercial and 

industrial allocations. A ―Growth Calculator‖ has been developed to accomplish this in a 

Graphical User Interface (GUI) venue. This Growth Calculator allows the user to adjust the 

percentage of population assigned to different housing types (i.e., Single Family 35%, Multifamily 30%, Rural 25%, etc. – this may also be more specific zoning), as well as 

adding/deleting or changing these values/types for each scenario run. This also allows the 

user to calculate the amount of land required to accommodate different choices for each land 

use type, reflecting demand in term of total land, lot size, people per household, units/lot, etc.

4. Develop a set of ―Growth Rules‖ (this can be specific zoning) by which this growing number 

of people and businesses will be housed and distributed. Conversely, growth rules can 

specify land not to be developed. For instance:

Place new multi-family within one mile of existing multifamily

Place new multi-family within 2 miles of existing commercial

Keep all low density (perhaps 1/2 acre or more...) 2 miles away from existing 

intersections

Cluster all development around nodes on a new/existing transportation corridor.

Notably, there may be any number of rules, and

Each rule may be assigned a priority weight in relation to the other rules used in that 

scenario ―run‖ to reflect the values of the user.

The addition of rules will add to the ―run times‖ of the model, however the output will 

reflect the complex aggregation of these rules.
Appendix M

1038

These rules can be developed as a separate set for each type of land use being assessed in the 

model. These various rules sets can then be run consecutively in a comprehensive model run, 

letting each rule set allocate land based on available area and priority in the run. Essentially, 

this allows the user to assess various differences based on which types of development have 

priority. When a scenario is generating, once land is used up by one type of development, it 

becomes unavailable to any other land use type. The model also notifies the user if there is 

insufficient land to meet the demand of a particular rule set. There is no limit on the number 

of rules in rule set or the number of rule sets run for a given scenario.

5. Run the model; this will take anywhere from a few minutes to several hours, based on the 

number of rules used, the size of the land bank and the scale of the grid, lot or parcel 

resolution to be utilized.

The model will generate a grid for each rule, which can be displayed to show 

where the rule applied.

The resultant rule grids are then combined to create a Composite Suitability Grid. 

This grid is used to allocate growth for that particular rule set.

Finally, a grid is created for each time step and rule set. For example if there was 

a set of 4 rules for Single Family Growth growing in ten year intervals to 2050, 

the model would generate:

i. 4 grids representing each rule

ii. 1 Composite Suitability Grid

iii. Grids that represent Single Family Growth 2010, Single Family Growth 

2020, Single Family Growth 2030, Single Family Growth 2040 and 

Single Family Growth 2050

These sets of grids are created for each rule set run for a given Scenario. These 

grids can then be merged by land use type, year of growth, etc., to display 

different scenario data for assessment.

6. Rerun the model with different population, land bank and growth rule scenarios. This 

accommodates a variety of values and opinions regarding community growth options.

7. These scenarios may be overlaid or otherwise compared for similarities and differences.
Appendix N

1039

Appendix N – BradshawHarquahala Route Model 

The following table is an estimate of the effect of the management decisions described in the Alternatives 

Chapter of this document on the vehicle route network. The table is simply a possible outcome based on 

a set of conditions that represents a way to compare alternatives and to estimate environmental impacts.

This table is a tool for RMP level analysis and not an RMP decision. The methodology for estimating 

the percentage of open, closed and new routes in the planning area was derived by interpreting land use 

allocations and the specific prescriptions that come with these allocations and making an estimate of the 

effects on the route system. This table is only an estimate of possible foreseeable outcomes of how the 

range of alternatives could affect route designation scenarios. Since actual route designation is likely to 

take several years to complete, detailed route-by-route analysis was not done. Instead, the potential affect 

of alternative decisions on the overall vehicle route network is displayed as estimated percentages of 

open, closed, and new routes. It was felt by the planning team that this was the most informative way to 

convey the possible effects of management actions in the alternatives.

Table N-1. Route Models

Special Area 

Designations and 

Allocations Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

mi % mi % mi % mi % mi %

ACECs

Total Routes 0.0 2.0 0.09 189 8.44 299 13.35 166.0 7.41

open N/A N/A 0.2 10 18.9 10 0.0 0 143.5 86

closed N/A N/A 1.8 90 170.1 90 299.0 100 22.5 14

new 2. N/A N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0

subtotal open 0.2 18.9 0.0 143.5

Areas Allocated to Maintain Wilderness Characteristics

Total routes 0 158.0 7.05 92.0 4.11 113.5 5.07 126.5 5.65

open N/A N/A 47.4 30 9.2 10 0.0 0 35.0 28

closed N/A N/A 110.6 70 82.8 90 113.5 100 91.5 72

new 2. N/A N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0

subtotal open 47.4 9.2 0.0 35.0

SRMA

Total routes 0.0 667.0 29.78 664.0 29.64 277.0 12.37 1277.0 57.01

open 0.0 100 653.7 98 630.8 95 249.3 90 1213.2 95

closed 0.0 28.3 2 64.8 5 155.1 10 63.9 5

new 2. 0.0 7.1 0.5 13.0 1 31.0 2 26 2

subtotal open 0.0 660.7 643.8 280.3 1238.7

ERMA

Total routes 0.0 1413.0 63.08 1295.0 57.81 1550.5 69.22 670.5 29.93

open 0.0 100 1384.7 98 1230.3 95 1395.5 90 637.0 95

closed 0.0 28.3 2 64.8 5 155.1 10 33.5 5
Appendix N

1040

Special Area 

Designations and 

Allocations Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

New 2. 0.0 7.1 0.5 13.0 1 31.0 2 13.4 2

subtotal open 0.0 1391.8 1243.2 1426.5 650.4

Total 1. 2240.0 2240.0 2240.0 2240.0 2240.0

Total open 2240.0 2086.0 1889.2 1644.8 2028.6

Total closed 0.0 168.9 382.4 722.6 211.4

Total new* 0.0 14.1 25.9 62.0 39.0

Net Route Mi. Closed 3. 0.0 154.8 356.5 660.6 172.4

% Closed (of exist. 

2240) 0.0 6.9% 15.9% 29.5% 7.7%

1. Total routes in Bradshaw-Harquahala – 2,240 miles

Route total based on GPS route inventory data where complete and Arizona Land Resource Information System data where GPS 

data collection has not yet been collected. Total miles excludes state and county highways.

2. New routes (as % of total within management areas) developed to maintain connectivity of network as mitigation for closures 

for resource protection

3. Total closed, less new routes

The following lists explain some of the conditions that were considered in developing the percentages in 

the table of open, closed, and new routes:

Within SRMA/RMZ - Intent is to manage, at a higher level, specific activities and uses such as 

motorized/mechanized/equestrian use.

Factors that were considered:

1. Routes that meet Land Health Standards for erosion, desired plant communities, riparian 

management and other standards would generally be retained. 

2. Routes consistent with management of the SRMA/RMZ intent would be retained. Areas 

allocated to day use recreation may have more looping route opportunities, while primitive areas 

may create more "cherry stem" spur route opportunities to maximize primitive recreation 

opportunities. 

3. Spur routes for parking and camping would be designated open if no resource concerns exist. 

4. New routes would be considered when needed to: 

o Mitigate routes not meeting Land Health Standard criteria. 

o Replace lost access opportunities 

o Enhance recreation opportunities 

5. Utility Rights-of-Way would generally be left open to public use. 

6. Access to private property would be generally left open to public use. 

7. Routes to wildlife water catchments would generally be left open for public use. 

8. Motorized routes that cause conflict with other land uses or resources would be mitigated or 

closed (per 43 CFR 8342.1) 
Appendix N

1041

Within ACEC - Intent is to limit activities that diminish the purpose of the ACEC.

Factors that were considered:

1. Routes that facilitate an increase in human activity that may be damaging, such as camping spur 

routes, may be closed. 

2. Routes that are determined to fragment habitat would be closed or limits placed on their use. 

3. ―Through‖ routes compatible with management will be left open. Analysis would attempt to 

identify important connecting routes. 

4. The ACEC allocation would generally prohibit building new routes unless required for 

management. 

5. Utility Rights-of-Way may be closed to public use if determined that use of the route is 

incompatible with the ACEC‘s purpose. 

6. Access to private property may be closed to public use, and a Right-of-Way grant required for 

access by property owners. 

7. Routes to wildlife water catchments would generally be left open for public use. 

8. Motorized routes that cause conflict with other land uses or resources would be mitigated or 

closed (per 43 CFR 8342.1) 

Within areas allocated to maintain wilderness characteristics/Backcountry and Passage Zone -

Intent is to manage generally for semi-primitive non-motorized and primitive experiences.

Factors that were considered:

1. Routes that facilitate an increase in motorized activity, such as vehicle camping spur routes and 

―through‖ routes with intensive motorized use, may be closed. 

2. Routes incompatible with maintaining the primitive values, such as redundant routes and routes 

no longer needed for management or other land uses would be closed. 

3. ―Through‖ routes compatible with management would be left open. Analysis would attempt to 

identify important connecting routes. 

4. New routes would generally be prohibited unless required for management. 

5. Routes to wildlife water catchments would generally be left open for public use. 

6. Utility Rights-of-Way would generally be left open to public use. 

7. Access to private property may be closed to public use, and a Right-of-Way grant required for 

access by property owner. 

8. Motorized routes that cause conflict with other land uses or resources would be mitigated or 

closed (per 43 CFR 8342.1)
Appendix O

1042

Appendix O - Grazing Allotment 

Information 

Allotment Name

Allotment

Number

Permitted 

AUMs

Livestock 

Number

Livestock

Type

AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT

Badger Spring Wash 06182 12 1 Cattle

Bluebell 06012 72 6 Cattle

Box Bar 06063 2447 206 Cattle

Cordes 06005 731 2470 Sheep

Cordes 06005 936 78 Cattle/Horse

Cosanti Ranch 06145 48 4 Cattle

Cross Y 06013 2790 250 Cattle

EZ Ranch 06045 972 81 Cattle

Horseshoe 06235 4572 381 Cattle

2Y 00048 216 18 Cattle

Sycamore 06169 696 58 Cattle/Horse

BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA PLANNING AREA

6Y Ranch Lease 05042 213 25 Cattle

A Bar V 05047 24 2 Cattle

Aguila 03000 5073 427 Cattle

Antelope Creek 06238 600 50 Cattle

Arrow Y (15) 00084 204 33 Cattle

Arrow Y (3) 00069 2151 339 Cattle

Auza 05032 84 7 Cattle

Beardsley Canal 06185 12 1 Cattle

Bialac 03008 Ephemeral Cattle

Big Bug Creek 06143 108 9 Cattle

Big Rebel Mine 06066 36 3 Cattle

Black Canyon 06122 95 16 Horse

Bo Nine 06095 948 79 Cattle

Boulder Creek 06215 5040 600 Cattle

Box Canyon Ranch 05029 72 6 Cattle

Buckhorn 06243 924 175 Cattle/Horse

Buckhorn Creek 06150 72 6 Cattle

Bumble Bee 06161 2640 485 Cattle

Cactus Garden 03011 1098 104 Cattle

Carter-Herrera 03015 512 52 Cattle

Castle Hot Springs 06206 60 8 Cattle

Central Az Ranch Co 03014 2329 211 Cattle

Champie 06026 1100 195 Cattle

Chaparral Gulch 06065 408 34 Cattle

Clem 03017 1085 400 Cattle

Congress 03019 3242 614 Cattle

Congress-Sky Arrow 05014 108 52 Cattle
Appendix O

1043

Allotment Name

Allotment

Number

Permitted 

AUMs

Livestock 

Number

Livestock

Type

Cooper Ranch 05013 2220 185 Cattle

Copper Mountain 06139 216 18 Cattle

Cottonwood Creek 06246 96 8 Cattle

Coughlin 05015 168 14 Cattle

Cross Mountain 03021 12 1 Cattle

Desert Hills 03025 365 39 Cattle

Desert Hills Lease 05016 432 36 Cattle

Dewey 06094 180 75 Goat

Douglas 03026 144 300 Cattle

Eagle Eye 03027 Ephemeral Cattle

Echeverria 03029 713 60 Cattle

Effus 03030 1155 125 Cattle

Eleven L 06103 1962 244 Cattle/Horse

Flat Iron 03031 457 38 Cattle

Foraker 05017 180 15 Cattle

Forepaugh Cattle Co. 05012 888 74 Cattle

Galena Gulch 06201 432 36 Cattle

Garcia 03095 3150 350 Cattle/Sheep

Grantham Bros. Lease 05049 156 13 Cattle

Green Gulch 06229 12 1 Cattle

Hackberry Gulch 06057 60 5 Cattle

Hackberry Mine 06046 12 1 Cattle

Hassayampa River 06035 12 1 Cattle

Hassayampa River Ran 05008 732 61 Cattle

Heine 05023 24 2 Cattle

Hozoni 06223 1703 330 Cattle

Humboldt 06181 24 2 Cattle

Humbug 06245 101 111 Cattle/Horse

J V Bar 06222 1781 209 Cattle/Horse

Jesus Canyon 06227 1068 111 Cattle/Horse

Jones 03045 900 75 Cattle

Kennedy 03010 360 30 Cattle

Kirkland 05019 132 11 Cattle

Lockett 06109 60 5 Cattle

Los Caballeros 03052 939 103 Cattle/Horse

Lower Bo Nine 00095 60 5 Cattle

Mayer 06011 264 22 Cattle

Michael Lease 05033 516 52 Cattle

Minnehaha Creek 06021 60 5 Cattle

Moralez 05035 826 86 Cattle

Ohaco 03060 1476 150 Cattle

Osborne Spring Wash 06213 60 5 Cattle

Oso Ranch Allotment 05040 768 64 Cattle

Poland Junction 06135 276 23 Cattle

Quarter Circle J 05020 144 12 Cattle

R. and E. Park Lease 00085 144 33 Cattle
Appendix O

1044

Allotment Name

Allotment

Number

Permitted 

AUMs

Livestock 

Number

Livestock

Type

Rafter Lazy W Ranch 05030 120 10 Cattle

Ridgeway-Kong 03071 120 10 Cattle

Rock Springs 06219 96 8 Cattle

Sky Arrow 03079 684 339 Cattle

Sprouse 03081 819 75 Cattle

Square M 05010 60 5 Cattle

Tee 06128 1728 144 Cattle

Texas Gulch 06048 48 4 Cattle

Thompson Lease 05004 144 12 Cattle

Three Canyon 06142 252 21 Cattle

Turner 03084 Ephemeral Cattle

U Cross 06239 1667 248 Cattle

VX Ranch 06104 680 111 Cattle/Horse

W Diamond 05028 384 32 Cattle

Wagoner 06147 12 1 Cattle

West Wing Mountain 06056 Ephemeral Cattle/Sheep

Whitehead 05048 288 24 Cattle

Yarber Wash 06027 156 13 Cattle
Appendix P

1045

Appendix P - Conservation 

Measures for Fire, Fuel, and Air 

Quality 

Conservation Measures for Fire Management 

Activities 

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.
Appendix P

1046

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 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.

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.
Appendix P

1047

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 short-term and 

long-term impacts. Someone who is familiar with fire impacts and the needs of the affected 

species will contribute to rehabilitation plan development. Appropriate timing of rehabilitation 

and spatial needs of Federally listed species will be addressed in rehabilitation plans.

RR-2 Seed from regionally native or sterile alien (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 off-road vehicle (ORV) trails resulting from 

fire suppression and the proposed fire management activities will be rehabilitated (water bars, 

etc.), and will be closed or made impassible for future use.

RR-6 Burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) activities and long-term restoration activities 

should be monitored, and the results provided to the USFWS and 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 fire-prone 

recreation uses during high fire-risk periods. Develop brochures, signs, and other interpretive 

materials to educate recreationists about the ecological role of fires, and the potential dangers of 

accidental fires.

Conservation Measures for Fire Management 

Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (RA)

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 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 
Appendix P

1048

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-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.

RA-9 If water is drafted from a stock tank or other body of water for fire suppression, it will not be 

refilled with water from another tank, lakes, or other water sources that may support non-native 

fishes, bullfrogs, crayfish, or salamanders. 

RA-10 Use of containment systems for portable pumps to avoid fuel spills in riparian or aquatic systems 

will be required.

Fuels Treatments (prescribed fire; mechanical, chemical, 

and biological treatments)

The following Conservation Measures are mandatory when implementing wildland fire use, prescribed 

fires, and the proposed vegetation treatments (mechanical, chemical, biological) within riparian, wetland, 

or aquatic habitats.
Appendix P

1049

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 occur when necessary 

to protect streams from increased ash or sediment flow into streams1.

If agreement cannot be reached or treatment will not meet fuel reduction objectives, BLM will reinitiate consultation. Our authority to make these types of changes is in the regulations at 43 CFR 

4110.3-3(b). 

Species Specific Conservation Measures

In addition to the general Conservation Measures listed in Sections 1.0 and 2.0, the following speciesspecific 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.

Birds

California brown pelican (FE)

BP-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats.

Southwestern willow flycatcher (FE)

 
Appendix P

1050

WF-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats.

WF-2 Except where fires are active in occupied habitat, minimize unnecessary low-level helicopter 

flights during the breeding season (April 1 – September 30). Approach bucket dip sites at a 90-

degree direction to rivers to minimize flight time over the river corridor and occupied riparian 

habitats. Locate landing sites for helicopters at least 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 – 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 – March 31). 

Bald eagle (FT)

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.

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 
Appendix P

1051

provide reasonable protection of identified nesting and roosting trees (see Conservation Measure 

FT-4).

Yellow-billed cuckoo (FC)

YC-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats.

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:

Desert pupfish (FE, CH)

DP-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats 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.

Gila topminnow (FE)

GT-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats.

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.
Appendix P

1052

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 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.

Gila chub (PE, Proposed CH) 

GC-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats 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 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.

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 off-road vehicles 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: Pima Pineapple Cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina), Siler Pincushion Cactus
Appendix P

1053

(Pediocactus sileri), Acuña Cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis), Fickeisen Plains 

Cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae).

1The 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/) 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 re-vegetated areas, will be closed to livestock grazing 

for at least two growing seasons following the season in which the wildfire occurred to promote recovery 

of burned perennial plants and/or facilitate the establishment of seeded species. Livestock permittees must 

be informed of the closure early during the plan preparation process, and livestock closures will be made 

a condition or term on the grazing license or permit through the issuance of grazing decision (see 43 CFR 

4160). Livestock closures for less than two growing seasons may be justified on a case-by-case basis 

based on sound resource data and experience. Livestock management following seedling establishment 

and/ or burned area recovery should maintain both non-native and/or native species to meet land use 

(including Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management) or activity plan 

objectives.
Appendix Q-1

1054

Appendix Q-1. Riparian Functional Condition – 

Agua Fria National Monument 

 

Definitions

Conditions:

PFC = Proper Functioning Condition

Trends:

UP = Upward Trend

NA = Not 

Applicable

FAR = Functioning At Risk NAT = No Apparent Trend

NF = Non-Functioning DWN = Downward Trend

AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT

Stream Segment 

#

BLM 

(miles)

Other 

(miles)

Total 

(miles)

Condition Trend Miles per 

Condition/Trend

Year 

Evaluated

Agua Fria 

River

1-H 0.40 1.60 2.00 PFC NA 0.40 2000

1-I 2.20 0.20 2.40 PFC NA 2.20 2000

1-J 2.60 0.00 2.60 FAR UP 2.60 2000

1-K 2.10 0.40 2.50 PFC NA 2.10 2000

1-L 2.00 0.00 2.00 PFC NA 2.00 1998

1-M 3.00 0.00 3.00 FAR UP 3.00 1998

1-N 3.30 0.60 3.90 FAR UP 3.30 1998

1-O 2.40 0.00 2.40 FAR NAT 2.40 1999

1-P 2.40 0.30 2.70 FAR NAT

2.40 200

4

Stream Total 20.40 3.10 23.50 Total PFC/NA 6.70

Total FAR/UP 8.90

Total FAR/NAT 4.80

Ash Creek 72-A 0.70 1.10 1.80 PFC NA 0.70 2003

72-B 0.90 0.00 0.90 PFC NA 0.90 2003

Stream Total 1.60 1.10 2.70 Total PFC/NA 1.60

Badger 

Springs 

Wash 41-A 1.76 0.00 1.76 FAR UP 1.76 2002

Big Bug 

Creek 45-A 0.83 0.00 0.83 FAR UP 0.83 1995
Appendix Q-1

1055

Bishop 

Creek 42-A 2.00 0.00 2.00 PFC NA 2.00 1998

Dry Creek 77-A 0.80 0.00 0.80 FAR DWN 0.80 2003

Indian 

Creek 44-A 2.10 0.00 2.10 FAR DWN 2.10 2003

44-B 4.00 0.00 4.00 FAR NAT 4.00 2003

Stream Total 6.10 0.00 6.10 Total FAR/DWN 2.10

Total FAR/NAT 4.00

Indian 

Creek 

Tributary 84-A 0.40 0.00 0.40 PFC NA 0.40 1999

Larry 

Creek 79-A 1.00 0.00 1.00 PFC NA 1.00 2003

Larry 

Creek 

Tributary 8-A 0.60 0.00 0.60 PFC NA 0.60 1998

Little Ash 

Creek 73-A 1.40 0.00 1.40 FAR DWN 1.40 2003

73-B 0.40 0.60 1.00 PFC NA 0.40 2000

Stream Total 1.80 0.60 2.40 Total FAR/DWN 1.40

Total PFC/NA 0.40

Lousy 

Canyon 78-A 1.80 0.00 1.80 PFC NA 1.80 2002

Silver 

Creek 43-A 1.00 0.00 1.00 FAR UP 1.00 1998

43-B 2.00 0.00 2.00 PFC NA 2.00 1998

43-C 2.00 0.00 2.00 FAR UP 2.00 1998

Stream Total 5.00 0.00 5.00 Total FAR/UP 3.00

Total PFC/NA 2.00

Sycamore 

Creek 46-A 1.90 0.70 2.60 FAR UP 1.90 2000

46-B 0.60 0.00 0.60 PFC NA 0.60 2003

46-C 1.20 2.00 3.20 PFC NA 1.20 2003

Stream Total 3.70 2.70 6.40 Total PFC/NA 1.80

Total FAR/UP 1.90

Overall 

Total for 

AFNM

BLM Other Total PFC/NA FAR/UP FAR/NAT FAR/DWN NF

47.79 7.50 55.29 18.30 16.39 8.80 4.30 0.00
Appendix Q-2

1056

Appendix Q-2. Riparian Functional Condition – 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Definitions

Conditions: PFC = Proper Functioning 

Condition

Trends:

UP = Upward Trend

NA = Not 

Applicable

FAR = Functioning At Risk

NAT = No Apparent 

Trend

NF = Non-Functioning

DWN = Downward 

Trend

BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA PLANNING AREA

Stream Segment 

#

BLM 

(miles)

Other 

(miles)

Total 

(miles)

Condition Trend Miles per 

Condition/

Trend

Year 

Eval

uate

d

Agua Fria 

River 1-D 1.54 0.62 2.16 PFC NA

1.54

1997

1-E 0.85 0.65 1.50 FAR

NA

T

0.85

1997

1-F 0.77 0.50 1.27 FAR

NA

T

0.77

1997

1-G 2.65 0.00 2.65 PFC NA 2.65 1997

1-Q 0.60 0.00 0.60 FAR UP 0.60 1995

Stream Total 6.41 1.77 8.18 Total PFC/NA 4.19

Total FAR/UP 0.60

Total FAR/NAT 1.62

Antelope 

Creek

9-A 1.90 0.00 1.90 FA

R

UP 1.90 2000

Antelope 

Creek

67-A 2.00 0.60 2.60 FA

R

NAT 2.00 2004

67-B 0.70 0.10 0.80 PF

C

NA 0.70 2004
Appendix Q

-2

1057

67-C 1.00 0.80 1.80 PFCNA 1.00 2004

Stream Total 3.70 1.50 5.20 Total PFC/NA 1.70

Total FAR/NAT 2.00

Arrastre 

Creek 16

-A 0.20 1.10 1.30

FARDWN 0.20 2001

16-B 0.70 0.10 0.80

FARDWN 0.70 2001

16-C 1.60 3.50 5.10

PFCNA 1.60 2004

Stream Total 2.50 4.70 7.20 Total PFC/NA 1.60

Total FAR/DWN 0.90

Banty Creek

27-A 1.20 1.30 2.50

PFC NA 1.20 1998

27-B 2.40 1.80 4.20

PFC NA 2.40 1998

27-C 2.00 1.20 3.20

FAR NAT 2.00 2004

Stream Total 5.60 4.30 9.90 Total PFC/NA 3.60

Total FAR/NAT 2.00

Big Bug 

Creek 45

-C 1.00 1.00 2.00 NF NA 1.00 1998

Bitter Creek 22

-A 1.85 0.00 1.85

FAR DWN 1.85 2000

Black 

Canyon 

Creek

2-A 1.04 0.00 1.04

PFC NA 1.04 2000

2-B 1.40 0.00 1.40

FAR NAT 1.40 1997

2-C 1.35 0.15 1.50

FAR DWN 1.35 1997

2-D 1.96 0.00 1.96

FAR NAT 1.96 1997

2-E

1.54 0.00 1.54

FAR NAT 1.54 1997

2-F 2.80 0.00 2.80

FAR NAT 2.80 1997

2-G 0.72 0.00 0.72

FAR NAT 0.72 1997
Appendix Q

-2

1058

2-H 1.92 0.00 1.92

FAR NAT 1.92 1997

2-I 1.11 0.12 1.23

FAR NAT 1.11 1997

2-J 0.85 0.00 0.85

FAR NAT 0.85 1997

Stream Total 14.69 0.27 14.96 Total PFC/NA 1.04

Total FAR/NAT 12.30

Total FAR/DWN 1.35

Boulder 

Creek 34

-B 1.50 1.90 3.40

PFC NA 1.50 1998

34-C 4.50 3.00 7.50

PFC NA 4.50 1998

34-D 1.40 1.40 2.80

PFC NA 1.40 1998

Stream Total 7.40 6.30 13.70 Total PFC/NA 7.40

Brown's 

Canyon

3-A 0.40 0.00 0.40

FAR DWN 0.40 2000

Buckhorn 

Spring 24

-A 0.40 0.00 0.40

PFC NA 0.40 2003

Bumble Bee 

Creek

6-A 0.54 0.00 0.54

FAR NAT 0.54 1998

6-D 0.62 0.00 0.62

FAR NAT 0.62 2002

Stream Total 1.16 0.00 1.16 Total FAR/NAT 1.16

Buzzard 

Roost Creek 25

-A 0.60 0.00 0.60

PFC NA 0.60 1998

Castle Creek

4-A 0.81 0.00 0.81

FAR NAT 0.81 2000

4-B 0.81 0.00 0.81

FAR NAT 0.81 1998

4-C 1.02 0.00 1.02

FAR NAT 1.02 1998

Stream Total 2.64 0.00 2.64 Total FAR/NAT 2.64

Cherry 

Creek 18

-B 0.15 0.20 0.35

PFC NA 0.15 1998

18-C 0.10 0.70 0.80

FAR UP 0.10 1998
Appendix Q

-2

1059

Stream Total 0.25 0.90 1.15 Total PFC/NA 0.15

Total FAR/UP 0.10

Cottonwood 

Creek 15

-A 0.60 0.15 0.75

PFC NA 0.60 2003

15-B 1.10 3.70 4.80

FAR NAT 1.10 2003

15-C 0.80 0.20 1.00

FAR NAT 0.80 2003

Stream Total 2.50 4.05 6.55 Total PFC/NA 0.60

Total FAR/NAT 1.90

Cottonwood 

Gulch 38

-B 0.82 0.17 0.99

FAR NAT 0.82 1998

Cow Creek 83

-A 0.40 0.80 1.20

FAR NAT 0.40 2000

East 

Antelope 

Creek 68

-B 0.90 1.40 2.30

PFC NA 0.90 2004

French 

Gulch 69

-A 1.30 0.00 1.30

FAR UP 1.30 1998

Galena 

Gulch 47-A 0.80 0.00 0.80

FAR NAT 0.80 1998

Hassayampa 

River 14

-C 0.70 0.00 0.70

FAR NAT 0.70 2004

14-D 0.60 0.80 1.40

FAR NAT 0.60 2004

14-E 1.50 1.90 3.40 NF NA 1.50 2004

14-F 1.70 1.80 3.50

FAR NAT 1.70 1995

14-G 1.90 0.00 1.90

PFC NA 1.90 1995

14-H 5.10 0.20 5.30

FAR UP 5.10 2004

14-I 1.20 0.00 1.20

PFC NA 1.20 2001

14-J 0.00 1.40 1.40

PFC NA 0.00 2001

14-K 2.60 0.90 3.50

PFC NA 2.60 2001
Appendix Q

-2

1060

14-L 0.55 1.45 2.00

PFC NA 0.55 2001

14-M 0.40 0.00 0.40

FAR NAT 0.40 2001

14-N 0.50 0.00 0.50

PFC NA 0.50 2001

Stream Total 16.75 8.45 25.20 Total PFC/NA 6.75

Total FAR/UP 5.10

Total FAR/NAT 3.40

Total NF/NA 1.50

Humbug 

Creek

30-B 1.50 0.47 1.97

FAR DWN 1.50 2000

30-C 1.20 0.00 1.20

PFC NA 1.20 1997

30-D 0.61 1.82 2.43

FAR UP 0.61 1997

30-E 1.20 0.00 1.20

FAR DWN 1.20 2004

30-F 2.20 0.70 2.90

FAR DWN 2.20 2004

30-H 0.70 3.30 4.00

FAR NAT 0.70 1997

30-I 2.20 0.30 2.50

PFC NA 2.20 1997

Stream Total 9.61 6.59 16.20 Total PFC/NA 3.40

Total FAR/UP 0.61

Total FAR/NAT 0.70

Total FAR/DWN 4.90

Minnehaha 

Creek 17-

B 0.60 0.55 1.15

FAR NAT 0.60 2000

Oak Creek 19

-A 0.75 1.00 1.75

PFC NA 0.75 1998

19-B 0.79 0.00 0.79

PFC NA 0.79 1998

19-C 0.65 1.65 2.30

FAR UP 0.65 2004

19-D 1.30 0.00 1.30

FAR UP 1.30 2004

19-E 0.20 0.50 0.70 FA UP 0.20 2004
Appendix Q-2

1061

R

Stream Total 3.69 3.15 6.84 Total PFC/NA 1.54

Total FAR/UP 2.15

S. Fork 

Spring 

Creek 21-A 0.20 0.50 0.70

FA

R NAT 0.20 1999

Spring 

Creek 20-A 0.25 2.25 2.50

FA

R NAT 0.25 1999

20-B 0.60 2.00 2.60

FA

R UP 0.60 1999

20-D 0.90 0.00 0.90

FA

R NAT 0.90 2003

Stream Total 2.15 4.25 6.40 Total FAR/UP 0.60

Total FAR/NAT 1.55

Tiger 

Canyon 66-A 0.70 0.00 0.70

FA

R NAT 0.70 1998

Tule Creek 10-E 1.27 0.00 1.27

PF

C NA 1.27 2000

Weaver 

Creek 70-B 0.40 0.80 1.20

FA

R NAT 0.40 1999

Overall 

Totals for 

BradshawHarquahalaBLM Other Total PFC/NA

FA

R/U

P FAR/NAT FAR/DWN NF

92.59 51.45 144.04 35.14

12.

36 33.19 9.40 2.50
Appendix R

1062

Appendix R - Lands Management

LANDS AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGE ONLY

Township Range Section Aliquot Acreage Total

12 N 05 W 09 Lots 3-4

W1⁄2SE1⁄4

164.20

 80.00

12 N 05 W 16 Lots 1-4

NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4

331.44

12 N 5 W 22 Lots 3-4

S1⁄2

SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4

513.81

11 N 5 W 21 Unpatented land in Sec. 21 

delineated in segregation survey 

approved 08/23/1939)

 

11 N 04 W 1 Lot 1

SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4

240.36

11 N 04 W 11 Lots 3-6 Inclusive

(Plus portions of MS 4659 A & B)

W1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4, 

E1⁄2SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4

11 N 04 W 12 Lots 1-13

NE1⁄4NW1⁄4

(Plus portions of MS 1323 B and 

MS 4659 A & B

11 N 04 W 13 Lots 1-8

SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4

(Plus portions of unpatented MS 

parcels)

195.66

200.00

395.66

11 N 04 W 14 Lots 1-4 34.88 34.88

11 N 04 W 22 Lots 5, 6, 11, 12 166.86 166.86

11 N 04 W 23 Lots 1-9

NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4

302.01

120.00

422.01

11 N 04 W 24 Lots 1-4, 7, 8, 9

(Plus unpatented MS)

NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4SE1⁄4

233.58

200.00

433.58

11 N 04 W 25 Lot 4

SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 174.05

175.05

11 N 04 W 26 Lots 1-3

NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4

 99.66

480.00

579.66

11 N 04 W 27 Lots 1-3, 5, 6 

SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

S1⁄2

191.14

400.00

591.14

11 N 04 W 28 Lots 7, 8, 13 120.26 126.26

11 N 04 W 36 W1⁄2W1⁄2 160 160.00

11 N 03 W 06 Lots 3-7

SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4

188.21

120.00

308.21
Appendix R

1063

11 N 03 W 07 Lots1-4

E1⁄2W1⁄2

(Excluding Patent 31583)

308.42 308.42

11 N 03 W 18 Lots 1-4

E1⁄2W1⁄2

149.12

160.00

309.12

10 N 06 W 10 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, 

NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, S1⁄2 

(Less ME patents and patent 

73778)

240.00 350.00

10 N 06 W 11 Lots 2-4 inclusive

SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

W1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4

130.50

10 N 06 W 15 Lots 1-4 inclusive

W1⁄2E1⁄2, W1⁄2 (Less Mineral 

Entry patents/patented lands)

10 N 06 W 16 Lots 1-2, 4-7 Inclusive

S1⁄2NE1⁄4 (Less ME patents)

SE1⁄4SW1⁄4

295.12 295.12

10 N 06 W 22 Lots 1-4 (Less ME patents)

NW1⁄4 (Less ME patents)

S1⁄2 (Less ME patents)

480.00 480.00

10 N 06 W 23 Lots 2-3, 9-19 Inclusive, 

21

Portions of MS 2901

S1⁄2SE1⁄4

463.64 463.64

10 N 06 W 24 W1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4 (Less ME 

patent/patent 453373)

220.00 220.00

10 N 07 W 18 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4 240.00 240.00

03 N 12 W 16 ALL 640.00 640.00

LANDS AVAILABLE FOR DISPOSAL

Township Range Section Aliquot Acreage

14 N 01 W 28 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.00 40.00

14 N 01 W 31 Lots 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 

26

 29.48 29.48

14 N 01 W 33 W1⁄2W1⁄2NW1⁄4 40.00 40.00

14 N 03 W 31 Lots 6, 7 83.94 83.94

14 N 04 W 25 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80.00 80.00

14 N 04 W 35 SW1⁄4 160.00 160.00

13 N 04 W 1 Lots 1-6

SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4,S1⁄2SE1⁄4

227.23

280.00

507.23

13 N 04 W 12 ALL 640.00 640.00

13 N 04 W 13 Lots 1 – 19

SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4

554.62

120.00

674.62

13 N 04 W 24 ALL 640.00 640.00
Appendix R

1064

13 N 04 W 25 ALL 640.00 640.00

13 N 04 W 26 ALL 

Less the following: 02-80-0009

 02-80-0007

 02-84-0031

 02-80-0008

13 N 04 W 27 ALL 640.00 640.00

13 N 04 W 28 ALL 640.00 640.00

13 N 04 W 33 N1⁄2 320.00 320.00

11 N 03 W 04 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 40.00

11 N 03 W 08 Lots 2

-3, 5-7, 9, 11

SW1⁄4SE1⁄4

Portion of unpatented mineral surveys

107.16

 40.00

~80.00

227.16

11 N 03 W 17 Unpatented Mineral Survey ~20.00 ~20.00

11 N 03 W 18 Portions of unpatented mineral survey ~ 5.00 ~ 5.00

10 N 04 W 11 E1⁄2SE1⁄4 (Less mineral survey 

4323/Patent 1133466)

139.339

10 N 04 W 12 W1⁄2SW1⁄4 (Less mineral survey 

4323/Patent 1133466)

10 N 04 W 16 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.00 40.00

12 N 03 W 31 Lots 6 & 7, N1⁄2SE1⁄4 171.60 171.60

12 N 03 W 32 Lots 3 & 4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 169.08 169.08

08 N 07 W 01 Lots 1

-4

S1⁄2

206.24

320.00

526.24

08 N 07 W 10 S1⁄2SE1⁄4 80.00 80.00

08 N 07 W 11 S1⁄2SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 120.00 120.00

08 N 07 W 14 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4, 

N1⁄2SW1⁄4

280.00 280.00

08 N 07 W 15 NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 240.00 240.00

07 N 07 W 16 ALL 640.00 640.00

07 N 07 W 33 NW1⁄4 160.00 160.00

07 N 06 W 17 S1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

 40.00 40.00

07 N 06 W 18 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

NE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4

 20.00 20.00

07 N 06 W 27 N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

W1⁄2SE1⁄4

600.00 600.00

07 N 06 W 34 N1⁄2NW1⁄4 80.00 80.00

07 N 02 E 15 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4 280.00 280.00

07 N 02 E 26 S1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 60.00 60.00

07 N 02 E 27 Lots 1, 16, 33, 42

-45, 47, 

49-50, 52-53, 56-58, 61-63, 

65-67

W1⁄2E1⁄2NE1⁄4

50.51

 40.00

 90.51

07 N 02 E 34 W1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

E1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4

 40.00 40.00

06 N 03 E 35 E1⁄2NW1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4

06 N 04 W 01 SE1⁄4 160.00 160.00

06 N 04 W 12 NE1⁄4 160.00 160.00

06 N 04 W 14 Lot 2 23.46 63.46
Appendix R

1065

SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40.00

06 N 04 W 23 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.00 40.00

06 N 04 E 01 S1⁄2SW1⁄4

06 N 04 E 11 NE1⁄4 (less MS 4334)

06 N 04 E 12 NW1⁄4 (less MS 4334)

05 N 03 E 01 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.00 40.00

05 N 04 E 06 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.00 40.00

05 N 01 E 28 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.00 40.00

05 N 01 E 29 E1⁄2E1⁄2 160.00 160.00

05 N 01 E 30 S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 60.00 60.00

05 N 01 W 13 Lot 16 66.10 66.10

05 N 01 W 14 Lot 11 39.04 39.04

05 N 01 W 15 Lot 11 54.64 54.64

04 N 1 E 06 Lots 8, 18

-21 Inclusive, 29-

31 Inclusive, 

SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

E1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

NE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4

 39.44

130.00

169.44

04 N 1 E 07 Lots 5, 25

E1⁄2W1⁄2

 10.00

160.00

170.00

04 N 1 E 12 W1⁄2W1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 10.00 10.00

04 N 1 E 23 W1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

N1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1⁄4SE1⁄4

 10.00 10.00

04 N 2 W 07 Lots 1

-2 76.50 76.50

04 N 1 W 24 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SW1⁄4

160.00 160.00

04 N 11W 30 NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 200.00 200.00

04 N 11W 32 N1⁄2SE1⁄4, S1⁄2S1⁄2 240.00 240.00

03 N 11 W 02 Lots 1

-4 Inclusive

S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2

160.56

480.00

640.56

03 N 10 W 08 ALL 640.00 640.00

03 N 09 W 31 Lots 1

-2

E1⁄2NW1⁄4

 76.45

 80.00

156.45

03 N 06 W 13 Lots 4

-5, 7

E1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4

Identified disposal lands are those 

that lie east of right-of-way boundary 

AZA-23351 (centerline questionable)

Approx.

320.00

Approx.

320.00

03 N 06 W 24 Lots 1, 4, 5

E1⁄2SE1⁄4

03 N 05 W 14 NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 240.00 240.00

03 N 05 W 17 Lots 2

-3, 8 240.45 240.45

03 N 05 W 18 Lots 1

-3 Inclusive, 5-8 

Inclusive, 11

NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, 

E1⁄2NW1⁄4

350.29

200.00

550.29

03 N 05 W 19 Lot 7 27.73 27.73

03 N 05 W 22 ALL 640.00 640.00

03 N 05 W 23 S1⁄2 320.00 320.00

03 N 05 W 25 ALL 640.00 640.00
Appendix R

1066

03 N 05 W 26 W1⁄2 320.00 320.00

03 N 05 W 27 ALL 640.00 640.00

03 N 05 W 34 W1⁄2 320.00 320.00

03 N 05 W 35 W1⁄2 320.00 320.00

02 N 01 W 13 SW1⁄4SE1⁄2 40.00 40.00

02 N 01 W 24 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.00 40.00

02 N 01 W 25 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4

 25.00 25.00

02 N 05 W 36 N1⁄2N1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

S1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

SW1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4

130.00 130.00

02 N 07 W 17 W1⁄2NW1⁄4 80.00 80.00

01 N 03 W 03 S1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 20.00 20.00

01 N 03 W 07 W1⁄2NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4 160.00 160.00

01 N 04 W 01 Lots 1-4 Inclusive

S1⁄2N1⁄2

160.64

160.00

320.64

01 N 04 W 11 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4 200.00 200.00

01 N 04 W 12 ALL 640.00 640.00

01 N 04 W 13 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

N1⁄2N1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4

120.00 120.00

01 N 04 W 14 N1⁄2NE1⁄4 80.00 80.00
Appendix S

1067

Appendix S Benefits-Based 

Recreation 

AFNM Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Regional and National Tourism

Front Country Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Motorized access for a combination of natural, scenic, and cultural features.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Within the life of the plan, visitors can easily access places to learn about natural and cultural resources through 

self-directed interpretive opportunities where 75% of the visitors will have a pleasurable experience.

TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Hiking 

Nature/cultural 

walks

Interpretation

Education

OHV

Enjoying access to natural 

landscapes.

Learning more about the 

natural landscape.

Feeling good about how 

cultural the cultural heritage is 

protected.

Knowing that this site exists 

and feeling proud that is 

managed. 

Personal: Greater freedom from urban living.

Community/Social: Increased sense of 

stewardship.

Environmental: Greater cultivation of 

stewardship ethic.

Economic: Opportunities exist in the private 

sector to compliment visitor’s needs and provide 

various services. 

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: SPN

Naturalness: SPN

Facilities: RN; SPM

Contacts: RN

Group Size: R

Evidence of Use: SPM

Mechanized Use: R; RN; SPM

Management Controls: RN; 

SPM

Visitor Services: R

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Conduct administrative actions to maintain desired settings. Develop interpretative 

media at high and moderate use sites. 

PRESCRIBED SETTING

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1068

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Work with the Friends of the AFNM to develop interpretation programs.

Work with local communities to partner on leverage opportunities.

Monitoring Monitor visitor satisfaction through surveys, comment cards, and/or personal 

contacts. Conduct Rapid Site Inventory from existing inventory to detect change. 

Administration

Install signage for travel and transportation network.

Provide brochures, maps, and on-site personnel. Install regulatory signs wherever 

needed. 

 
Appendix S

1069

RECREATION SETTINGS AFNM Front Country 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1070

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often 

gravel surfaced for 

erosion control. Litter 

may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1071

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Agua Fria NM Front Country

NNiiicchhee MMoottoorriiizzeeddAAcccceessss ttoonnaattuurraalll,,, ccuulllttuurraalll,,, aannddsscceenniiiccaarreeaass//aapppprreecciiiaatt iiioonn...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess interpretation, hiking, mountain bicycling, OHV, 

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Sense of place:

Knowing this attraction 

is here, in, or near my 

residence.

Greater environmental 

awareness and 

sensitivity.

A more outdoor-oriented 

lifestyle.

Enhanced sense of 

personal freedom

Improved understanding 

of our interaction and 

impact on public lands.

Greater cultivation of natural 

resources and stewardship 

ethic.

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Stewardship & 

Hospitality:

Feeling good about the 

way our cultural 

heritage is being 

protected.

Enlarged sense of 

personal accountability for 

acting responsibly on 

public lands.

Reduced negative human 

impacts such as litter, 

looting, vegetative 

trampling, and unplanned 

(social) trails.

Increased awareness and 

protection of natural and 

cultural landscapes.
Appendix S

1072

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Agua Fria NM Passage, PAGE 2

NNiiicchhee MMoottoorriiizzeeddAAcccceessss ttoonnaattuurraalll,,, ccuulllttuurraalll,,, aannddsscceenniiiccaarreeaass//aapppprreecciiiaatt iiioonn...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess interpretation, hiking, mountain bicycling, OHV, 

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoy Nature:

Enjoying nature and 

having access to 

natural landscapes.

Greater freedom from 

urban living.

Enhanced lifestyle. Greater appreciation for 

natural and cultural heritage.

Appreciation for how 

managers care for the 

landscape and its attributes.

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss
Appendix S

1073

AFNM Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Regional and National Tourism

Back Country Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Non-motorized recreation

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Within the life of the plan, visitors will have a pleasurable experience where they will be in the setting 

characteristics they intended where at least 75% of these visitors will be pleased with their recreation experience.

TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Hiking 

Backpacking

Nature Study

Journaling

Photography

Savoring the total sensory 

mechanisms of sight, sound, 

and smell of the natural 

landscape.

Contemplating humankind’s or 

own relationship within the 

land/cosmos.

Thinking about and shaping 

spiritual values.

Feeling good about solitude, 

isolation, and independence. 

Personal: Enhanced lifestyle, physical 

conditioning, and improving competencies for 

decision making.

Community/Social: Greater community 

involvement in recreation and aesthetics and 

other land use decisions. 

Environmental: Conservation of entire 

sustainable ecosystems.

Economic: Enhanced ability for visitors to find 

areas providing wanted recreation experience 

and benefits. 

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: SPNM;SPM

Naturalness: P; SPNM

Facilities: P, SPNM

Contacts: SPNM

Group Size: SPNM

Evidence of Use: P, SPNM

Mechanized Use: P, SPNM

Management Controls: SPNM

Visitor Services: P, SPNM, 

SPM

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Conduct administrative actions to maintain desired settings. Establish key 

observation points for Rapid Site Inventory.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Work with the Friends of the AFNM and others who may conduct studies and 

interpretive opportunities for the zone, including education outreach with programs 

such as Leave No Trace. 

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1074

Monitoring

Monitor visitor satisfaction through surveys, comment cards, and/or personal 

contacts. Conduct Rapid Site Inventory from existing inventory to detect change. 

Administration Provide basic maps and LNT information for users. 
Appendix S

1075

RECREATION SETTINGS AFNM Back Country 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group with SRP approval

Greater than 50 people 

per group

e. Contacts (with other groups)

PRESCRIBED SETTING

EXISTING SETTING
Appendix S

1076

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often 

gravel surfaced for 

erosion control. Litter 

may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1077

 

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Agua Fria National Monument Back Country

NNiiicchhee NNoonn--mmoottoorriiizzeeddaarreeaass ffoorrrreeccrreeaatt iiioonnuusseerrss

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess hiking, backpacking, exploring nature, physical conditioning, journaling, photography

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Savoring the total sensory 

mechanisms of sight, 

sound, and smell of the 

natural landscape.

A more holistic sense of 

wellness.

Greater self-reliance.

Greater sensitivity/

awareness of outdoor 

aesthetics, nature’s art 

and elegance.

Greater retention of 

distinctive natural 

landscape features. 

Increased awareness and 

need for protection of 

natural landscapes.

Greater community 

involvement in recreation and 

other land use decisions.

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Contemplating 

humankinds/own 

relationship with the 

land and cosmos.

Confirmation/development 

of my own values.

Deeper sense of personal 

humility.

Greater spiritual growth.

Greater environmental 

awareness and 

sensitivity.

Increased compassion for 

others.
Appendix S

1078

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Agua Fria NM Passage, PAGE 2

NNiiicchhee ...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Thinking about and 

shaping my own 

spiritual values

Improving mental wellbeing

Greater spiritual growth

Increased adaptability

Enlarged sense of 

personal accountability for 

acting responsibly on 

public lands.

Enhanced lifestyle.

Lifestyle improvement or 

maintenance.

Conservation of entire 

sustainable ecosystems.

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss
Appendix S

1079

Feeling good about 

solitude, being isolated, 

and independent.

Improved skills for 

outdoor enjoyment.

Increased 

independence/autonomy.

Enhanced ability for visitors 

to find areas providing 

wanted recreation 

experience and benefits. 
Appendix S

1080

AFNM Special Recreation Management Area 

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Regional and National Tourism

Passage Zone Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Motorized access for a combination of natural, scenic, and cultural features.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Secondary travel routes provides the means for visitors to see and experience the diversity in the landscape and 

improve orientation skills. At least 75% of visitors to this zone will enjoy exploring these areas.

TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Hiking 

Mountain biking

Interpretation

Education

OHV

Enjoying access to natural 

landscapes.

Learning more about the 

natural landscape.

Feeling good about how the 

area is used and enjoyed.

Enjoying the opportunity to 

explore on my/our own. 

Personal: Greater freedom from urban living.

Community/Social: Increased sense of 

stewardship.

Environmental: Greater awareness of nature’s 

terms and that this is a special place.

Economic: Renting/buying the correct 

equipment to venture into the passage zone.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: RN; SPN

Naturalness: SPM

Facilities: SPNM, SPM, RN

Contacts: RN

Group Size: SPM

Evidence of Use: SPM

Mechanized Use: RN, SPM

Management Controls: FC, 

SPM

Visitor Services: R

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Conduct administrative actions to maintain desired settings.

Develop interpretation areas along Bloody Basin Road.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Work with Friend’s of the AFNM to develop interpretation programs.

Work with local communities to partner on leverage opportunities.
Appendix S

1081

Monitoring Monitor visitor satisfaction through surveys, comment cards, and/or personal 

contacts. Conduct Rapid Site Inventory from existing inventory to detect change. 

Administration

Install signage for travel and transportation network.

Provide brochures, maps, and other means of on-site information as needed to 

enhance the visitor’s trip.
Appendix S

1082

RECREATION SETTINGS AFNM Passage 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads,

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

Other people consistently 

in view

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1083

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

contact is still intermittent

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often 

gravel surfaced for 

erosion control. Litter 

may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1084

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Agua Fria NM Passage

NNiiicchhee MMoottoorriiizzeeddAAcccceessss ttoonnaattuurraalll,,, ccuulllttuurraalll,,, aannddsscceenniiiccaarreeaass//aapppprreecciiiaatt iiioonn...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess interpretation, hiking, mountain bicycling, OHV, 

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Learning more about 

the natural landscape 

located in this zone.

Greater freedom from 

urban living.

Greater sensitivity/ 

awareness of outdoor 

aesthetics, nature’s art 

and elegance.

Increased stewardship

Reduced looting and 

vandalism of sites.

Increase the awareness and 

protection of natural 

landscapes.

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss
Appendix S

1085

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Agua Fria NM Passage, PAGE 2

NNiiicchhee MMoottoorriiizzeeddAAcccceessss ttoonnaattuurraalll,,, ccuulllttuurraalll,,, aannddsscceenniiiccaarreeaass//aapppprreecciiiaatt iiioonn...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess interpretation, hiking, mountain bicycling, OHV, 

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Feeling good about 

how this area is being 

used and enjoyed.

Greater environmental 

awareness and sensitivity

Greater sensitivity and 

respect for other visitors.

Sharing spectacular 

sights/natural phenomena 

with others. 

Greater awareness that this 

area is a special place.

An improved stewardship 

ethic.

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying exploration on 

my/our own.

Greater self-reliance.

Greater sense of 

adventure.

Improved leadership 

abilities.

A more outdoor oriented 

lifestyle and self-reliance in 

daily living.
Appendix S

1086

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Agua Fria NM Passage

NNiiicchhee MMoottoorriiizzeeddAAcccceessss ttoonnaattuurraalll,,, ccuulllttuurraalll,,, aannddsscceenniiiccaarreeaass//aapppprreecciiiaatt iiioonn...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess interpretation, hiking, mountain bicycling, OHV, 

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Learning more about 

the natural landscape 

located in this zone.

Greater freedom from 

urban living.

Greater sensitivity/ 

awareness of outdoor 

aesthetics, nature’s art 

and elegance.

Increased stewardship

Reduced looting and 

vandalism of sites.

Increase the awareness and 

protection of natural 

landscapes.

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss
Appendix S

1087

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Agua Fria NM Passage, PAGE 2

NNiiicchhee MMoottoorriiizzeeddAAcccceessss ttoonnaattuurraalll,,, ccuulllttuurraalll,,, aannddsscceenniiiccaarreeaass//aapppprreecciiiaatt iiioonn...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess interpretation, hiking, mountain bicycling, OHV, 

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Feeling good about 

how this area is being 

used and enjoyed.

Greater environmental 

awareness and sensitivity

Greater sensitivity and 

respect for other visitors.

Sharing spectacular 

sights/natural phenomena 

with others. 

Greater awareness that this 

area is a special place.

An improved stewardship 

ethic.

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying exploration on 

my/our own.

Greater self-reliance.

Greater sense of 

adventure.

Improved leadership 

abilities.

A more outdoor oriented 

lifestyle and self-reliance in 

daily living.
Appendix S

1088

Castle Hot Springs Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Regional motorized and non-motorized recreationists

Hieroglyphic Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Motorized recreationists

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Within the life of the plan, create a motorized route network that is sustainable. Recreation use will be compatible 

with regional air quality standards and 75% of visitors will have at least a moderate realization of desired 

outcomes.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

OHV club events

Competitive racing

OHV riding

Camping 

associated with 

OHV riding

Develop personal skills and 

abilities

Talk to others about 

equipment and gear.

Enjoy the closeness of friends 

and family.

Develop personal skills and 

abilities. 

Personal: Stronger ties with family and friends. 

Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment. Greater 

sense of personal security. Improve problem solving 

skills. Enhanced sense of personal freedom.

Community/Social: Greater family bonding. 

Reduced social isolation. Improved group 

cooperation. More well rounded child development.

Environmental: Reduced negative human 

impacts such as vegetation trampling, litter, and soil 

erosion.

Economic: Improved local economic stability.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: RN, SPM

Naturalness: RN, SPM

Facilities: RN, SPM

Contacts: RN, SPM

Group Size: R, RN, SPM

Evidence of Use: RN, SPM

Mechanized Use: RN, SPM

Management Controls: 

RN, SPM

Visitor Services: RN, SPM

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Designate all motorized routes for casual use, commercial use, organized, and 

competitive use. Locate at least 20 miles for diverse competitive challenge. Develop 

parking and other facilities to support uses.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Partner with OHV clubs to develop maintenance and management agreements and 

to manage volunteers. Develop joint marketing materials.

Monitoring Measure current disturbance and monitor for change. Use visitor surveys to 

determine satisfaction. Monitor for complaints from surrounding communities and 

landowners. Monitor with citizen collaboration. 

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1089

Administration Work with user groups to help maintain facilities and provide educational outreach 

while conducting visitor contacts.
Appendix S

1090

 

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Hieroglyphics

NNiiicchhee MMoottoorriiizzeeddrreeccrreeaatt iiioonn

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Camping associated with OHV riding, OHV club events, Competitive racing, OHV riding, 

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying the 

closeness of family 

and friends

Develop personal 

skills and abilities

Develop self 

confidence

Stronger ties with family 

and friends

Improve skills for outdoor 

enjoyment

Greater sense of personal 

security

Greater family bonding

Enhanced sense of 

personal freedom and 

greater self reliance

Improved leadership 

abilities

Improved group 

cooperation

More well rounded child 

development

Greater freedom from urban 

living

Reduced social isolation
Appendix S

1091

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Talk to others about 

gear and equipment

Improve problem solving 

skills

Reduced negative human 

impacts such as 

vegetation trampling, litter, 

and soil erosion

Improved local economic 

stability

Enjoying an escape 

from crowds of people

Closer relationship with 

the natural world

Increased awareness and 

protection of natural 

resources

Greater freedom from urban 

living
Appendix S

1092

Hassayampa Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Regional Motorized Users and Organized Groups

Stanton Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Organized Prospecting Groups and Motorized Recreationists

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Through the life of the plan, provide an environment suitable for an array of motorized and non-motorized

recreation opportunities, including group events associated with prospecting clubs. Conflict complaints will not 

exceed three per year and 75% of visitors surveyed will respond with moderate realization of desired outcomes.

TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Diverse motorized 

recreation 

Prospecting club 

outings on club 

held lands

Long distance 

equestrian routes

Enjoy being close with family 

and friends

Develop personal skills and 

abilities

Appreciation of personal 

interaction with others

Talk to others about gear and 

equipment

Personal: Stronger ties with family and friends. 

Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment.

Improved problem-solving skills.

Community/Social: Greater family bonding.

More well rounded child development.

Reduced social isolation.

Improved group cooperation.

Environmental: Reduced negative human 

impacts such as vegetation trampling, litter, and 

soil erosion.

Economic: Improved local economic stability.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: SPM - RN

Naturalness: SPM - RN

Facilities: SPNM, SPM

Group Size: SPM – RN – R

Contacts: SPM - RN

Evidence of Use: SPM - RN

Visitor Services: SPM – RN

Management Controls: 

SPNM – SPM

Mechanized Use: SPM – RN 

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management No competitive races. Provide a diverse network of motorized routes compatible with 

existing non-motorized trails. Improve the quality of recreation experiences for both 

casual and group recreation activities.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Partner with prospecting clubs and organized OHV groups to develop marketing and 

educational materials.

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1093

Monitoring Monitor visitor satisfaction through user surveys. Monitor setting and environmental 

changes by measuring changes in setting character and changes in recreation 

related disturbances.

Administration Apply administration actions as needed to maintain the SPM and RN settings. 
Appendix S

1094

RECREATION SETTINGS Stanton 

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group

Greater than 50 people 

per group

e. Contacts (with other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 3-6 encounters/day off 7-14 encounters/day off People seem to be Other people consistently 

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores
Appendix S

1095

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

in view

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often gravel 

surfaced for erosion control. 

Litter may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

 

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1096

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Stanton

NNiiicchhee PPrroossppeecctt iiinnggccllluubbssaannddmmoottoorriiizzeeddrreeccrreeaatt iiioonniiissttss

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Prospecting club events, diverse motorized recreation, long distance equestrian rides

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying the closeness of

family and friends

Develop personal skills

and abilities

Develop self-confidence

Stronger ties with family and 

friends

Improve skills for outdoor 

enjoyment with others

Greater sense of personal 

security

Greater family bonding

Greater sensitivity to and 

respect for other visitors

Improved leadership abilities

Improved group cooperation

More well rounded child 

development

A more outdoor oriented lifestyle 

and self reliance

Reduced social isolation
Appendix S

1097

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Appreciation of 

personal

interaction with visitors

Talk to others about 

gear and equipment

Greater personal 

enrichment through 

involvement with other 

people

Improve problem solving 

skills

Increased acceptance of 

others who are different

Reduce negative human 

impacts such as 

vegetation trampling, 

littering, and soil erosion. 

Improve community 

integration

Improve local economic 

stability
Appendix S

1098

Hassayampa Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Regional Motorized users and organized groups

San Domingo Wash Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Organized prospering groups, non-motorized and motorized recreation users

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

By 2012, provide a Sonoran Desert experience suitable for an array of motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities. Less than three written complaints annually and 75% of visitors responding with favorable 

realization of desired outcomes. 

TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Camping

Prospecting

OHV travel

OHV group and 

race events

Equestrian

Enjoying closeness of family 

and friends.

Developing personal skills and 

abilities.

Learning about the biological 

and physical resources.

Talking to others about 

technique and equipment.

Developing self confidence.

Enjoying the outdoor world.

Personal: Improved skills for the outdoors. 

Enhanced sense of personal freedom. Stronger 

ties with family and friends. 

Community/Social: Greater bonding with 

family and friends. Improved group 

cooperation. Improved networking abilities with 

people who have similar interests. 

Environmental: Reduce negative human 

impact like vegetation trampling, litter, and soil 

erosion.

Economic: Improved local economic stability. 

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: 

SPM, RN

Naturalness: 

RN 

Facilities: RN

Group Size: 

SPM, RN, R, U

Contacts: SPM, RN

Evidence of Use: 

SPM, RN 

Visitor Services: 

SPNM, SPM 

Management Controls: 

P, SPNM, SPM, RN 

Mechanized Use: 

SPM 

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management

Locate at least 10 miles of single and two track motorized routes to provide for an array 

of challenges for ATVs and motorcycles. Limit number of motorized competitive races 

to 2 per year. Develop at least 1 day use motorized and non-motorized staging area.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Partner with prospecting clubs and organized OHV groups to develop marketing and 

educational materials.

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1099

Monitoring

Monitor visitor satisfaction through user surveys. Monitor settings by measuring 

setting changes.

Administration Apply administration actions as needed to maintain the SPM to rural settings
Appendix S

1100

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone San Domingo Wash

NNiiicchhee OOrrggaanniiizzeeddPPrroossppeecctt iiinnggggrroouuppss,,, mmoottoorriiizzeeddaannddnnoonn--mmoottoorriiizzeeddrreeccrreeaatt iiioonniiissttss

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Prospecting club group events, diverse motorized recreation, non-motorized users.

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying the closeness of

family and friends

Develop personal skills

and abilities

Learning about the 

biological and physical 

resources

Stronger ties with family and 

friends

Improve skills for outdoor 

enjoyment with others

Improved knowledge and 

improved safety about 

interacting with the natural 

environment. 

Greater family bonding

Greater protection of 

resources as skill abilities 

improve.

Greater protection of 

resources as knowledge 

level improves.

More well rounded child 

development

A more outdoor oriented 

lifestyle and self reliance

A greater appreciation for 

biological and physical 

resources and how to use these 

resources responsibly. 
Appendix S

1101

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Talk to others about 

technique and equipment

Developing selfconfidence

Enjoying the outdoor 

world.

Improve communication and 

problem solving skills.

Greater sense of personal 

security.

Reduce stress

Reduce negative human 

impacts such as vegetation 

trampling, littering, and soil 

erosion. 

Improved leadership 

abilities.

Reduce negative human 

impacts such as vegetation 

trampling, lettering, and soil 

erosion. 

Positive contribution to local and 

regional economic stability.

Improve local economic stability

Reduced social isolation

Improved community 

integration.
Appendix S

1102

RECREATION SETTINGS San Domingo Wash 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1103

per day on travel routes encounters/day on travel 

routes

encounters/day en route more encounters/day en 

route

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often gravel 

surfaced for erosion control. 

Litter may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present
Appendix S

1104

EXISTING 

SETTING

PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1105

Hassayampa Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Local and regional motorized recreation enthusiasts

Vulture Mine Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Motorized recreatioinists and some organized prospecting clubs

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Through the life of the plan, provide a Sonoran Desert landscape suitable for intensive single and two track routes 

for general motorized recreation use, commercial use, organized OHV events, and competitive races. Conflict 

complaints will not exceed three per year and 75% of visitors surveyed will respond with moderate realization of 

desired outcomes.

TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Casual use 

motorized 

recreation

Group events, both 

motorized 

recreationists and 

prospecting clubs

Competitive 

motorized races

Develop personal skills and 

abilities

Talk to others about gear and 

equipment

Develop self confidence

Enjoy closeness of family and 

friends

Personal: Improve skills for outdoor enjoyment

Enhance sense of personal freedom. Greater 

self-reliance. Stronger ties with family and 

friends.

Community/Social: Greater family bonding.

Reduced social isolation.

Improved group cooperation.

Environmental: Reduced negative human 

impacts such as vegetation trampling, litter, and 

soil erosion.

Economic: Improved local economic stability.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: SPM - RN

Naturalness: SPM - RN

Facilities: SPM – RN

Group Size: SPNM – SPM –

RN – R – U 

Contacts: SPM – RN – R – U 

Evidence of Use: SPM – RN 

Visitor Services: RN

Management Controls: 

RN

Mechanized Use: SPM – RN 

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Designate single and two-track routes to provide an array of motorized recreation 

opportunities, including routes available for competitive racing. Develop parking and 

staging areas to meet recreation demand and limit resource impacts.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Partner with motorized recreation organizations to develop marketing and 

educational materials.

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1106

Monitoring Monitor visitor satisfaction through user surveys. Monitor setting and environmental 

changes by measuring changes in setting character and changes in recreation 

related disturbances.

Administration Apply administration actions as needed to maintain desired settings. 
Appendix S

1107

RECREATION SETTINGS Vulture Mine 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (with other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view
Appendix S

1108

per day on travel routes encounters/day on travel 

routes

encounters/day en route more encounters/day en 

route

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often gravel 

surfaced for erosion control. 

Litter may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1109

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Vulture Mine

NNiiicchhee MMoottoorriiizzeeddRReeccrreeaatt iiioonniiissttssaannddoorrggaanniiizzeeddpprroossppeecctt iiinnggggrroouuppss

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Casual motorized recreation, group events, competitive races

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Develop personal skills 

and abilities

Talk to others about 

gear and equipment

Develop selfconfidence

Improve skills for outdoor 

enjoyment

Improve problem solving 

skills

Greater sense of personal 

security

Enhanced sense of 

personal freedom

Greater self reliance

Reduced negative human 

impacts such as 

vegetation trampling, 

littering, and soil erosion

Improved leadership 

abilities

Improved group 

cooperation

Greater freedom from urban 

living

Improve local economic 

stability

Reduced social isolation
Appendix S

1110

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoy the closeness of 

friends and family

Stronger ties with family 

and friends

Greater family bonding More well rounded child 

development
Appendix S

1111

Hassayampa Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Community Local and regional tourism

Wickenburg Community Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Equestrian trail users

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Through the life of the plan, create a world class equestrian trail system that meets the needs of the Wickenburg 

community. Diverse recreation activities such as equestrian, hiking, biking, OHV use, etc., will not result in user 

conflicts or degrade the natural and cultural resources. Over 90% of the visitors will have a satisfactory 

experience. 

TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Equestrian riding

Hiking

Mountain biking

OHV-ATV, 

motorcycles, trucks, 

etc.

Sharing cultural heritage with 

new people

Feeling this community is a 

special place to live

Enjoying the serenity of the

outdoors.

Personal: More relaxed, mentally recharged, 

and improved mental well-being

Community/Social: Better understanding of 

community cultural identify. Greater community 

ownership and citizenry.

Environmental: Develop or strengthen strong 

affinity for place. Increased sense of 

stewardship and care giving for area. Greater 

protection for natural and cultural resources.

Economic: Safeguarding recreation and 

tourism market, niche, or character.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: 

SPNM, SPM, RN

Naturalness: 

SPNM, SPM, RN 

Facilities: RN

Group Size: 

SPNM, SPM, RN, R 

Contacts: SPNM, SPM, RN

Evidence of Use: 

SPNM, SPM, RN 

Visitor Services: 

SPNM, SPM, RN 

Management Controls: 

SPNM, SPM, RN 

Mechanized Use: 

SPNM, SPM, RN 

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management

Develop system of high quality trails; maintain and upgrade vulture pack trail; develop 

horse camping facilities. 

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1112

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Work with Wickenburg Chamber of Commerce Conservation Foundation and 

businesses to develop marketing materials and educational materials.

Monitoring Success will be measured by feedback from the Wickenburg Chamber of 

Commerce, trail related businesses, and the Wickenburg Community.

Administration Work with Wickenburg to develop citizen and community partnerships to maintain 

the trail network and desired experiences and settings. 
Appendix S

1113

RECREATION SETTINGS Wickenburg Community 

 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group

4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people 

per group

e. Contacts (with other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1114

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often 

gravel surfaced for 

erosion control. Litter 

may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1115

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Wickenburg Community

NNiiicchhee EEqquueessttrriiiaann ttrraaiiilll uusseerrss

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Equestrian riding, hiking, mountain bicycling, OHV-ATV

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Sharing our cultural 

heritage with others

Greater awareness that 

this community is a special 

place

Increased appreciation of 

the cultural history

Improved understanding of 

this community’s 

dependency on public 

lands

Getter understanding of 

the cultural identity 

retained in the community

Greater community 

ownership and 

stewardship of recreation 

and natural resources 

Greater community involvement 

in recreation and other land use 

decisions.

Greater commitment by 

community to protect the 

resources and educate those 

looking for a Sonoran desert 

experience of the old west.

Maintenance of community’s 

recreation tourism market, 

niche, and character.
Appendix S

1116

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying the serenity of 

the outdoors.

Feeling that this is a 

good place to live

Feel more relaxed, 

mentally charged, and 

improved well-being.

Enlarged sense of 

personal accountability for 

acting responsibly on 

public lands

Develop and strengthen 

affinity for this area

Greater protection of fish, 

wildlife, and plant habitat 

from growth, 

development, and public 

use impacts. 

Increased sense of 

stewardship, pride, and care 

for the area.

Increased community 

involvement strengthening 

our community’s small town 

rural character.

Heightened sense of

satisfaction with community
Appendix S

1117

Hassayampa Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Community Local and regional tourism

The Box Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Local day and overnight users mostly equestrian and hiking

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Within the life of the plan, provide a high quality non-motorized recreation use area with amenities. Trash and 

litter will be reduced and 90% of users will have experiences that achieve their desired outcomes. 

TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Picnicking

Hiking

Horseback riding

Camping

Enjoying the closeness of 

friends and family

Enjoying easy access to 

natural landscapes

Feeling good about how this 

attraction is being used and 

enjoyed

Escape everyday 

responsibility for awhile

Personal: Stronger ties with friends and family 

and more outdoor oriented lifestyle. Diminished 

mental anxiety.

Community/Social: Greater awareness that 

community is a special place. Greater family 

bonding. Enhanced lifestyle.

Environmental: Maintenance of distinctive 

recreation setting character. Greater 

community ownership and stewardship of 

recreation and natural resources. 

Economic: Increased desirability as a place to 

live.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: 

SPM, RN

Naturalness: 

SPM, RN 

Facilities: SPM, RN, R

Group Size: 

SPNM, SPM, RN, R 

Contacts: SPNM, SPM, RN

Evidence of Use: 

SPM, RN 

Visitor Services: 

SPM, RN 

Management Controls: 

RN 

Mechanized Use: 

SPNM, SPM, RN, R 

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management

Locate and develop parking, camping, and public use areas. Develop passenger car 

access. Designate routes for various uses such as hiking and equestrian. Identify 

motorized routes in suitable places. Construct appropriate facilities as needed (toilets, 

tables, etc.).

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1118

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Establish partnerships with town of Wickenburg, Wickenburg Chamber of 

Commerce, Yavapai County, and others to help plan site and develop marketing 

strategies.

Monitoring Develop and conduct monitoring of facilities as they are built or designated so 

capacity can be established. Monitoring can include measurement user surveys and 

feedback from partners.

Administration Work with partners to develop a volunteer service to help maintain the site and help 

to modify visitor behavior. 
Appendix S

1119

 

RECREATION SETTINGS: THE BOX 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (with other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view
Appendix S

1120

per day on travel routes encounters/day on travel 

routes

encounters/day en route more encounters/day en 

route

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often 

gravel surfaced for 

erosion control. Litter 

may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING 

SETTING

PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1121

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone The Box

NNiiicchhee LLooccaalll ddaayyaannddoovveerrnniiigghhtt uusseerrss

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Picnicking, camping, hiking, horseback riding

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying the closeness 

of

family and friends

Enjoying having easy 

access to natural 

landscapes

Stronger ties with family 

and friends

A more outdoor oriented 

lifestyle

Greater family bonding

Greater awareness that 

this community is a 

special place

More well rounded child 

development

Enhanced lifestyle
Appendix S

1122

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Feeling good about how 

this attraction is being 

used and enjoyed

Escaping everyday 

responsibilities for 

awhile

More well-informed 

responsible visitor

Diminished mental anxiety

Greater community 

ownership and 

stewardship of recreation 

and natural resources

Enhanced lifestyle

Increased desirability as a 

place to live or retire

Maintenance of distinctive 

recreation setting character
Appendix S

1123

Upper Agua Fria River Basin Special Recreation Management 

Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Community Local and regional residents and motorized and non-motorized recreationists.

Mayer Community: Recreation Management Zone

MARKET NICHE

Community-based dispersed non-motorized and motorized recreation use and community open space.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Throughout the life of the plan, provide diverse dispersed recreation opportunities and open space that satisfy 

community and regional needs, protects natural resources, and reduces conflict with residents, local land owners 

and recreationists. Maintaining access to public lands will be paramount. Complains of conflicts will be reduced to 

less than 25 per year.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Hiking

Hunting

Horseback riding

OHV

Mountain biking

Open Space

Experiencing a greater sense 

of independence

Releasing or reducing some 

built-up mental tension

Enjoying escape from crowds 

of people 

Enjoying easy access to 

natural landscapes

Being in control of things that 

happen

Just knowing this attraction is 

here in or near my community

Personal: Greater awareness that this 

community is a special place. Improved sense 

of control over one’s life. Better mental and 

physical health.

Community/Social: Improved understanding 

of this community’s dependency on public 

lands. Increased sense of stewardship, pride 

and care for the area. Increased independence 

and autonomy. Increased awareness and 

protection of natural and cultural resources. 

Increased community involvement and 

strengthening our community’s small town rural 

character.

Environmental: Increased awareness and 

protection of natural resources. Increased 

desirability as a place to live.

Economic: Increased property values. 

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: R, RN, SPM

Naturalness: RN, SPM

Facilities: RN, SPM

Contacts: RN, SPM, SPNM

Group Size: R, RN, SPM, 

SPNM

Evidence of Use: RN, SPM, 

SPNM

Mechanized Use: RN, SPM

Management Controls: RN, 

SPM

Visitor Services: RN, SPM

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1124

Management

Develop travel and transportation network and support facilities to meet diverse 

recreation demands while reducing conflict between recreation users and local 

residents and landowners.

Locate, and develop new trails, parking, and staging areas, where suitable, for 

motorized and non-motorized use.

Comply with the managerial and social settings described in the land use plan, such as 

VRM designations and ROS settings. 

Define, designate, implement and monitor a designated and comprehensive travel route 

network for motorized and non-motorized recreation experiences and access. Allow 

facilities when needed to protect resources, provide for visitor safety, improve the 

quality of recreation experiences or to resolve social conflicts. Apply Tread Lightly, 

Leave-No-Trace and Adaptive Management Practices as described in the land use 

plan. Maintain the 14-day camping

Limit and current or future Land Health Standards.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Partner with residents, user groups, and other government agencies to develop a 

strategy to develop partnerships and local stewardship efforts, maintain or enhance 

public access to public lands, reduce resource and user conflicts, and ensure open 

space and resource conservation.

Monitoring Track complaints and visitor satisfaction. Determine the number and success of 

partnerships and community involvement through surveys and community outreach.

Administration

Work with citizen partnerships and other government agencies to apply needed 

administration to meet objectives. Combine management, marketing and monitoring 

goals above, along with aggressive partnership building and community involvement. 

Partner wit the communities of Mayer, Prescott Valley, Arcosonti and other growing 

communities in the region.

Work with citizen volunteer groups to complete a comprehensive strategy and trails 

plan for selecting and developing new single- and multi-use hiking, equestrian, and 

OHV trails for all lands in the Upper Agua Fria Basin area. Collaborate with the 

following entities: AGFD, Prescott National Forest, Yavapai County, Yavapai County 

Trails Association, and land managers of other trails. 

Establish a citizen’s working group to help comprehensive trail management, design, 

planning and on-0the-ground implementation.
Appendix S

1125

RECREATION SETTINGS: Mayer Community

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1126

per day on travel routes encounters/day on travel 

routes

encounters/day en route more encounters/day en 

route

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often gravel 

surfaced for erosion control. 

Litter may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and 

describes experiences and 

benefits available. Area 

personnel do on-site 

education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING 

SETTING

PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1127

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone: Mayer Community

NNiiicchhee:: Community-based dispersed non-motorized and motorized recreation use and community open space.

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Equestrian riding, hiking, mountain bicycling, hunting, sightseeing, open space, and 

OHV-ATV

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Feeling good about the 

way our natural 

resources are being 

managed and how this 

attraction is being used 

and enjoyed. 

Greater awareness that 

this community is a special 

place

Improved understanding of 

this community’s 

dependency on public 

lands

Greater community 

ownership and 

stewardship of recreation 

and natural resources 

Greater community involvement 

in recreation and other land use 

decisions.

Greater commitment by 

community to protect the 

resources and educate those 

looking for open space and the 

experience of the old west.

Greater protection of fish, 

wildlife, and plant habitat 

from growth, development, 

and public use impacts. 

Maintenance of community’s 

recreation niche, and character.

Increased awareness and 

protection of natural resources.
Appendix S

1128

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying the serenity of 

the outdoors.

Feeling that this is a 

good place to live

Enjoying having easy 

access to natural 

landscapes.

Avoiding compromising 

the quality of life here in 

the Upper Agua Fria 

Watershed.

Feel more relaxed, 

mentally charged, and 

improved well-being.

Enlarged sense of 

personal accountability for 

acting responsibly on 

public lands

Greater awareness that 

this community is a special 

place.

Greater sense of 

responsibility for one’s 

quality of life. Greater 

Develop and strengthen 

affinity for this area

Maintenance of open 

space and distinctive 

open-space atmosphere.

Maintenance of open 

space and distinctive 

open-space atmosphere

Enlarged sense of 

personal accountability for 

acting responsibility on 

public lands.

Increased sense of 

stewardship, pride, and care 

for the area.

Increased community 

involvement strengthening 

our community’s small town 

rural character.

Improved understanding of 

how this community’s urbanrural interface impacts its 

quality of life.

Heightened sense of 

satisfaction with our 

community. Enhanced 

lifestyle. Enlarged sense of 

community dependency on 
Appendix S

1129

Being in control of 

things that happen and 

knowing that things are 

not going to change too 

much.

Relishing group 

affiliation and 

togetherness.

environmental awareness 

and sensitivity.

Increased independence 

and autonomy.

Greater personal 

enrichment through 

involvement with other 

people with similar 

interests.

Greater understanding of 

the importance of open 

space and recreation to 

our community.

Improved community

integration.

public lands.

Increased desirability as a 

place to live. Increased 

property values due to open 

space and recreation. Some 

increased local-tourism 

revenue.

Greater sense of 

responsibility for one’s quality 

of life. Greater environmental 

awareness and sensitivity. 

Improved group cooperation.
Appendix S

1130

Castle Hot Springs Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Regional motorized and non-motorized recreationists

Hieroglyphic Mountains Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Motorized recreationists

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Within the life of the plan, create a motorized route network that is sustainable. Recreation use will be compatible 

with regional air quality standards and 75% of visitors will have at least a moderate realization of desired 

outcomes.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

OHV club events

Competitive racing

OHV riding

Camping 

associated with 

OHV riding

Develop personal skills and 

abilities

Talk to others about 

equipment and gear.

Enjoy the closeness of friends 

and family.

Develop self-confidence 

Personal: Stronger ties with family and friends. 

Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment. Greater 

sense of personal security. Improve problem solving 

skills. Enhanced sense of personal freedom.

Community/Social: Greater family bonding. 

Reduced social isolation. Improved group 

cooperation. More well rounded child development.

Environmental: Reduced negative human 

impacts such as vegetation trampling, litter, and soil 

erosion.

Economic: Improved local economic stability.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: RN, SPM

Naturalness: RN, SPM

Facilities: RN, SPM

Group Size: R, RN, SPM

Contacts: RN, SPM

Evidence of Use: RN, SPM

Visitor Services: RN, SPM

Management Controls: 

RN, SPM

Mechanized Use: RN, SPM

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Designate all motorized routes for casual use, commercial use, organized, and 

competitive use. Locate at least 20 miles for diverse competitive challenge. Develop 

parking and other facilities to support uses.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Partner with OHV clubs to develop maintenance and management agreements and 

to manage volunteers. Develop joint marketing materials.

Monitoring Measure current disturbance and monitor for change. Use visitor surveys to 

determine satisfaction. Monitor for complaints from surrounding communities and 

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1131

landowners. Monitor with citizen collaboration. 

Administration Work with user groups to help maintain facilities and provide educational outreach 

while conducting visitor contacts.
Appendix S

1132

RECREATION SETTINGS Hieroglyphic 

Mountains

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 3-6 encounters/day off 7-14 encounters/day off 15-19 encounters/day off People seem to be Other people consistently 

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1133

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

in view

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often gravel 

surfaced for erosion control. 

Litter may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present
Appendix S

1134

 

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Hieroglyphic Mountains

NNiiicchhee MMoottoorriiizzeeddrreeccrreeaatt iiioonn

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Camping associated with OHV riding, OHV club events, Competitive racing, OHV riding, 

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying the 

closeness of family 

and friends

Develop personal 

skills and abilities

Develop self 

confidence

Stronger ties with family 

and friends

Improve skills for outdoor 

enjoyment

Greater sense of personal 

security

Greater family bonding

Enhanced sense of 

personal freedom and 

greater self reliance

Improved leadership 

abilities

Improved group 

cooperation

More well rounded child 

development

Greater freedom from urban 

living

Reduced social isolation

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1135

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Talk to others about 

gear and equipment

Improve problem solving 

skills

Reduced negative human 

impacts such as 

vegetation trampling, 

litter, and soil erosion

Improved local economic 

stability
Appendix S

1136

Castle Hot Springs Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET 

STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Regional motorized and non-motorized recreationists

Sheep Mountain Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Non-motorized recreation – hikers

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

A primitive undeveloped non-motorized setting will be maintained and natural character of landscape will be 

enhanced. Difficult access characterizes this area.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience 

Opportunities Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Hiking

Backpacking

Savoring the total sensory 

receptors such as sight, 

sound, and smell of a natural 

landscape.

Contemplating the 

relationship humans have 

with the land.

Releasing or reducing builtup mental tensions. 

Personal: Enhanced awareness and 

understanding of nature. Greater sense of 

responsibility for one’s quality of life. 

Improved mental well-being.

Community/Social: Enhanced lifestyle

Environmental: Greater environmental 

awareness and protection of natural 

resources. Closer relationship with natural 

world.

Economic: Increased work productivity.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: SPM, SPNM

Naturalness: SPNM

Facilities: P

Contacts: P

Group Size: P

Evidence of Use: P

Mechanized Use: P

Management Controls: P

Visitor Services: P

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Close reclaiming routes except those needed for administrative use. No new 

motorized routes. No discretionary surface disturbance.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Work with citizen groups and surround land owners to manage access to area.

Monitoring Conduct period assessments to determine if there are changes to disturbed 

areas. 
Appendix S

1137

Administration Combine management and marketing goals above.
Appendix S

1138

RECREATION SETTINGS Castle Hot Springs,

 Sheep Mountain 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group

Greater than 50 people 

per group

e. Contacts (with other groups)
Appendix S

1139

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often 

gravel surfaced for 

erosion control. Litter 

may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice
Appendix S

1140

EXISTING 

SETTING

PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1141

 

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Castle Hot Springs, Sheep Mountain

NNiiicchhee:: NNoonn--mmoottoorriiizzeeddrreeccrreeaatt iiioonn::: hhiiikkeerrss

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Hiking or backpacking

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Savoring the total 

sensory perceptions of 

sight, sound, and smell 

of a natural landscape

Contemplating the 

relationship of humans 

with the land.

Enhanced awareness and 

understanding of nature

Greater environmental 

aware-ness and sensitivity

Greater sense of 

responsibility for one’s own 

quality of life

Increased awareness 

and protection of 

natural landscapes

Closer relationship 

with the natural world

Greater cultivation of a 

natural resource 

stewardship ethic.

Greater environmental 

awareness and protection of 

natural resources.

Greater understanding of 

social relationships in 

society.

Closer relationship with 

natural world.
Appendix S

1142

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Releasing or reducing built 

up mental tensions

Improved mental well/being Diminished mental anxiety Increased work productivity

Enhanced lifestyle
Appendix S

1143

Castle Hot Springs Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Regional motorized and non-motorized recreationists

Castle Hot Springs Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Dispersed non-motorized and motorized recreation users.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Throughout the life of the plan, provide diverse recreation opportunities that meet regional needs, protects natural 

resources, and reduces conflict with residents and local land owners. Complains of conflicts will be reduced to 

less than 25 per year.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Hiking

Hunting

Horseback riding

OHV

Mountain biking

Experiencing a greater sense 

of independence

Releasing or reducing some 

built-up mental tension

Enjoying escape from crowds 

of people 

Personal: Greater self-reliance. Improved 

sense of control over one’s life. Restored mind 

from unwanted stress. Closer relationship with 

the natural world.

Community/Social: Greater freedom from 

urban living. Increased independence and 

autonomy.

Environmental: Increased awareness and 

protection of natural resources.

Economic: Increased work productivity.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: R, RN, SPM

Naturalness: RN, SPM

Facilities: RN, SPM

Contacts: RN, SPM, SPNM

Group Size: R, RN, SPM, 

SPNM

Evidence of Use: RN, SPM, 

SPNM

Mechanized Use: RN, SPM

Management Controls: RN, 

SPM

Visitor Services: RN, SPM

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Develop transportation network and support facilities to met a diverse recreation 

demand while reducing conflict between recreation users and local residents and 

landowners.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education &

interpretation)

Partner with residents, user groups, and other government agencies to develop a 

strategy to modify user behavior and reduce conflict.

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1144

Monitoring Track complaints and visitor satisfaction. 

Administration Work with citizen partnerships and other government agencies to apply needed 

administration to meet objectives.
Appendix S

1145

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Castle Hot Springs, Castle Hot Springs

NNiiicchhee DDiiissppeerrsseeddnnoonn--mmoottoorriiizzeeddaannddmmoottoorriiizzeeddrreeccrreeaatt iiioonniiissttss

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess OHV, Hiking, equestrian, hunting 

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Experiencing a 

greater

Sense of 

independence

Greater self reliance Improved sense of 

control over one’s 

life

Increased independence/

autonomy
Appendix S

1146

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Releasing or reducing 

built up mental tensions

Restored mind from 

unwanted stress

Diminished mental anxiety Increased work productivity

Enjoying an escape 

from crowds of people

Closer relationship with 

the natural world

Increased awareness and 

protection of natural 

resources

Greater freedom from urban 

living
Appendix S

1147

RECREATION SETTINGS, Castle Hot Springs 

 PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (with other groups)

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1148

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often gravel 

surfaced for erosion control. 

Litter may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems to 

be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available to 

provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to the 

left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled on-site 

outdoor skills 

demonstrations and clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points on 

basic user ethics. May have 

back country use restrictions. 

Enforcement presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. Total 

use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement to 

redistribute use and reduce 

user conflicts, hazards, and 

resource damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but all 

is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition to 

non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway traffic 

is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1149

Castle Hot Springs Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Local and regional residents

Baldy Mountain Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Local and regional non-motorized visitors seeking trails and open space.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

By the year 2012, manage to allow visitors to obtain non-motorized trail based recreation opportunities 

throughout the zone, with at least 75% of visitors realizing at least a good recreation benefits and outcomes.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Hiking

Horseback riding

Mountain biking

Hunting

Sightseeing

Enjoying easy access to 

natural landscapes.

Participating in needed 

physical exercise.

Knowing things are not going 

to change too much.

Personal: Improved quality of life and 

improved physical fitness.

Community/Social: Enlarged sense of 

community dependency on public lands and 

local lifestyles.

Environmental: Greater protection of wildlife 

habitat from public land use impacts.

Economic: Increased property values and a 

positive contribution to economic stability.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: SPNM, SPM

Naturalness: RN

Facilities: SPM

Contacts: SPM

Group Size: RN, R, U

Evidence of Use: SPNM

Visitor Services: SPM

Management Controls: RN

Mechanized Use: SPMN

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Develop up to five hiking, mountain bicycling, and equestrian trails. 

Designate and limit vehicle use to designated routes. Establish visual resource 

management Class II designations.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Establish agreements with the Bradshaw Foothills Coalition, Peoria, and Maricopa 

and Yavapai Counties for the development of educational and marketing material, 

and for shared management of trails.

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1150

Monitoring Track complaints and visitor satisfaction; track compliance with route closures and 

use regulations.

Administration

Work with citizen partnerships and other government agencies to apply needed 

administration to meet objectives. Specifically using existing groups such as the 

Bradshaw Foothills Coalition to plan, survey, construct and maintain a high-quality 

trail system.
Appendix S

1151

 

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Baldy Mountain

NNiiicchhee LLooccaalll aannddrreeggiiioonnaalll nnoonn--mmoottoorriiizzeeddaannddvviiissiiittoorrss sseeeekkiiinngg ttrraaiiilllssaannddooppeennssppaaccee...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, hunting, sightseeing

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying easy access 

to natural landscapes

Greater freedom from 

urban living

Enhanced lifestyle Greater appreciation for open 

spaces

Greater involvement in open

space issues.

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

A more holistic sense of 

wellness and improved 

mental well-being

Improved sense of 

control over one’s life 

Improved productivity in work and community 

involvement.
Appendix S

1152

Greater sensitivity 

to/awareness of outdoor 

aesthetics, nature’s art 

and its elegance

Enhanced awareness and 

understanding of nature

Enlarged sense of 

personal accountability for 

acting responsibly on 

public lands

Maintenance of community’s distinctive recreationtourism market niche or character

Greater retention of distinctive natural landscape 

features
Appendix S

1153

 Recreation Settings Baldy Mountain 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1154

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often 

gravel surfaced for 

erosion control. Litter 

may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1155

Black Canyon Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Community and Regional Local and regional tourism

Table Mesa Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Intensive motorized recreation for single and two-track routes with camping related to OHV 

use.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

Within the life of the plan, provide for quality recreation opportunities that meet the community and regional 

needs, provide for acceptable dust control and compatibility with neighboring communities and landowners, and 

protect and enhance resource protection. Trash and litter will be reduced and 90%, resource of users will have 

experiences that achieve their desired outcomes. 

TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

OHV (single and 

two-track)

Camping related 

to OHV use

Developing skills and abilities

Enjoying the closeness of 

friends and family

Enjoying easy access to 

natural landscapes

Enjoying being able to 

frequently participate in 

desired activities in the setting 

of this place.

Personal: Stronger ties with friends and family 

and more outdoor oriented lifestyle. Improved 

teamwork and cooperation. A more outdoor 

oriented lifestyle. A more well-informed 

responsible visitor. 

Community/Social: Greater family bonding. 

Greater awareness that this community is a 

special place. Greater community ownership 

and stewardship of recreation and natural 

resources. 

Environmental: Maintenance of distinctive 

recreation setting character. Greater 

community ownership and stewardship of 

recreation and natural resources. 

Economic: Enhanced ability for visitors to find 

areas providing wanted recreation experiences 

and benefits. 

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: RN, R

Naturalness: SPM, RN

Facilities: SPM, RN

Group Size: SPM, RN

Contacts: R

Evidence of Use: SPM, RN

Visitor Services: RN

Management Controls: SPM, 

RN

 

Mechanized Use: SPM, RN

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1156

Management

Continue to manage for a semi-primitive motorized and roaded-natural setting. Develop 

facilities, staging areas, trails, and other sites when needed to protect resources, to 

promote visitor health and safety, or to maintain recreation opportunities. 

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Develop collaborative partnerships with Maricopa County Parks and Recreation 

Department and communities to share recreation management and projects such as 

developing a long term Black Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Trails master plan, 

ensure consistent management between partners, maintain open space and provide 

a natural gateway into Maricopa County. 

Monitoring

Determine specific areas where comprehensive site assessments would be initiated 

to determine the existing physical and social impacts of recreation activities, 

establish monitoring plans to manage camping and other recreation uses, and define 

conditions and standards as related to recreation settings established for area. 

Monitoring can include user surveys and feedback from partners.

Administration Work with partners to develop a volunteer service to help maintain the site and help 

to modify visitor behavior. 
Appendix S

1157

RECREATION SETTINGS, Table Mesa 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles fro-m 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (with other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1158

per day on travel routes encounters/day on travel 

routes

encounters/day en route more encounters/day en 

route

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often gravel 

surfaced for erosion control. 

Litter may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1159

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone Table Mesa

NNiiicchhee IIInntteennssiiivveemmoottoorriiizzeeddrreeccrreeaatt iiioonnaanndd ttwwoo--ttrraacckkwwiiitthhccaammppiiinnggrreelllaatteedd ttooOOHHVVuussee

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess OHV riding, camping

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Developing skills and 

abilities

Enjoying the closeness 

of

family and friends

Enjoying easy access 

to natural landscapes

Improved teamwork and 

cooperation

Stronger ties with family 

and friends

A more outdoor oriented 

lifestyle

Greater personal 

enrichment through 

involvement with other 

people

Greater family bonding

Greater awareness that 

this community is a 

special place

Improved understanding of 

how this area’s rural-urban 

interface impacts its quality of 

life.

Enhanced lifestyle.

Enlarged understanding of 

one’s responsibility to help 

care for this area and keep it 

clean.
Appendix S

1160

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying to frequently 

participate in desired 

activities in the setting 

of this place

More well-informed 

responsible visitor

Greater community 

ownership and 

stewardship of recreation 

and natural resources

Maintenance of distinctive 

recreation setting character
Appendix S

1161

BLACK CANYON - Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Community Local and regional non-motorized recreationists.

North Black Canyon Trail Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Non-motorized open space recreation – hiking, equestrian, and mountain bike riding opportunities in the Upper 

Agua Fria watershed area.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

By 2012, complete the Black Canyon Trail north and east of Highway 69 to connect with trails in Prescott National 

Forest. Analyze, build and designate the trail to provide a non-motorized experience along the historic sheep 

driveway. Identify exact locations of the trail and facilities in conjunction with the Yavapai Trails Association and 

other interested citizens. Maintain rural roaded-natural and semi-primitive motorized settings as suitable.

Consider and study the Black Canyon Trail for inclusion into the National Recreation Trail System, as described in 

the National Trails System Act of 2002 (P.L.90-543).

Provide high-quality non-motorized recreation experiences for hikers, equestrians and mountain bikers through 

the Upper Agua Fria Basin area north of Highway 69. Provide loops and trailheads for destination and point-topoint non-motorized travel through completion of a professionally developed and maintained trail. Promote the 

preservation of, public access to, and appreciation of open space and public landscapes. By 2008, establish 

partnerships with the Upper Agua Fria Watershed Group, Yavapai County, the Black Canyon Trail Coalition, and 

other associated user groups and communities. Begin trail work in FY-2007 and measure public satisfaction 

through use surveys.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Hiking, 

Backpacking, 

Equestrian, and 

Mountain Biking.

Community 

Partnerships and 

Coalitions.

Savoring the total sensory 

receptors such as sight, 

sound, and smell of a natural 

landscape.

Enjoying a wide variety of 

environments within a 

dedicated and managed 

recreation area.

Feeling good about the way 

our natural resources are 

being managed and how this 

attraction is being used and 

enjoyed. 

Enjoying getting needed 

physical exercise.

Avoid compromising the 

quality of life here.

Knowing that things are not 

going to change too much.

Personal: Enhanced awareness and 

understanding of nature. Greater sense of 

responsibility for one’s quality of life. Greater 

environmental awareness and sensitivity. 

Improved physical and mental well being.

Community/Social: Enhanced lifestyle. 

Greater personal enrichment through 

involvement with other people of similar 

interests. Heightened sense of satisfaction with 

our community. Greater community involvement 

in recreation and other land use decisions. 

Enhanced lifestyle.

Environmental: Greater environmental 

awareness and protection of natural resources. 

Closer relationship with natural world.

Economic: Increased desirability as a place to 

live. Increased property values due to open 

space and recreation. Some increased localtourism revenue.

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1162

Feeling good about how 

visitors are being managed.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: SPM, RN

Naturalness: SPM, RN, R

Facilities: SPM, RN

Contacts: SPM, RN

Group Size: SPNM, SPM, RN

Evidence of Use: SPNM, SPM

Mechanized Use: SPNM

Management Controls: SPM, 

RN

Visitor Services: SPM, RN

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management

Locate and develop staging, or camping areas near communities and vehicle access points to 

service the North Black Canyon Trail and adjoining public lands for the following purposes: 

parking, unloading OHVs and horses, and picnicking. Development could include the 

following: informational signs, kiosks, picnic tables, loading ramps, and soil stabilization for 

dust abatement.

Issue a right-of-way for the trail and facilities to preserve public access and protect the trail 

from incompatible land uses. Acquire access easements or rights-of-way for nonFederal lands where the trail or facilities are proposed.

Recognize the trail and facilities in any land tenure actions. Retain a 1/4-mile corridor (1/8 

mile each side) along the trail. 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in section 2.6.2.2.6.6.

Nominate the North BCT in the National Recreation Trail System. Begin trail layout, survey and 

construction in FY-2007.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Work with citizen groups, communities, the Black Canyon Trail Coalition membership, the 

Upper Agua Fria Watershed group, the Yavapai County Trails Association, national hiking 

and mountain bike associations, local communities, and surrounding land users to fund, 

survey, maintain, and construct the North BCT. 

Monitoring

Conduct period assessments annually along the trail to determine new alignments, loops, 

connectivity, and maintenance needs.

Administration

Combine management, marketing and monitoring goals above, along with aggressive 

partnership building and community involvement. Partner wit the communities of Mayer, 

Prescott Valley, Arcosonti and other growing communities in the region.
Appendix S

1163

Work with citizen volunteer groups to complete a comprehensive strategy and trails plan for 

selecting and developing new single- and multi-use hiking, equestrian, and OHV trails for all 

lands in the RMZ. Collaborate with the following entities: AGFD, Prescott National Forest, 

Yavapai County, Yavapai County Trails Association, and land managers of other trails. 

Establish a citizen’s working group to help with trail and facility sites, designs, and 

management. Develop a Black Canyon Trail management and partnership plan with 

community and citizen input in conjunction with the Black Canyon Trail Plan for the Black 

Canyon SRMA. Within one year of plan approval define the following: proposed trail 

alignments, trailheads, linking trails, and other alignments. Complete this master plan 

within two years of plan approval.
Appendix S

1164

RECREATION SETTINGS North Black Canyon 

Trail 

 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1165

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often gravel 

surfaced for erosion control. 

Litter may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice
Appendix S

1166

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1167

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone – North Black Canyon Trail

NNiiicchhee:: LLooccaalll aannddrreeggiiioonnaalll ccoommmmuunniiittyyooppeennssppaaccee ffoorr ttrraaiiilll--bbaasseeddooppppoorrttuunniiitt iiieess ffoorrhhiiikkeerrss,,, mmoouunnttaaiiinnbbiiikkeerrssaanndd

hhoorrsseerriiiddeerrss...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Mountain biking, hiking, equestrian and backpacking

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Savoring the total 

sensory perceptions of 

sight, sound, and smell 

of a natural landscape.

Enjoying having easy 

access to natural 

landscapes.

Enjoying having a wide 

variety of environments 

within a single 

recreation area.

Enhanced awareness and 

understanding of nature. 

Closer relationship with 

natural world.

Greater environmental 

aware-ness and sensitivity. 

Greater sense of 

responsibility for one’s own 

quality of life.

Learning more about 

things here and enjoying 

some needed metal rest 

and physical exercise.

Increased awareness 

and protection of 

natural landscapes.

A more outdoororiented lifestyle and a 

closer relationship with 

the natural world.

Greater awareness 

and understanding of 

nature.

Greater cultivation of a 

natural resource 

stewardship ethic.

Encouraging others to help 

safeguard our lifestyle and 

quality of life.

Greater community 

ownership and stewardship 

of park, recreation and 

natural resources. 

Maintenance of distinctive 

recreation settings and 

character.
Appendix S

1168

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying getting some 

needed physical exercise, 

and perhaps strenuous 

exercise.

Improved mental and physical 

well/being

Diminished mental anxiety. Increased work productivity

Improved physical fitness and 

health maintenance.

Enjoying a wide variety of 

environments within a 

dedicated and managed 

recreation area.

Feeling good about the 

way our natural resources 

are being managed and 

how this attraction is being 

used and enjoyed. 

Avoiding compromising 

the quality of life here in 

the Upper Agua Fria 

Watershed.

Just knowing this 

attraction in or near my 

community.

Being in control of things 

that happen and knowing 

Closer relationship with the 

outdoor world. A more outdoor 

oriented lifestyle.

Greater sense of responsibility 

for my own quality of life and 

an enlarged sense of personal 

accountability for acting 

responsibility on public lands.

Greater awareness that this 

community is a special place.

Increased independence and 

autonomy.

Greater sense of responsibility 

for one’s quality of life. Greater 

Maintenance of community’s 

distinctive recreation 

character.

Better sense of my place 

within the community.

Maintenance of open space 

and distinctive open-space 

atmosphere.

Enlarged sense of personal 

accountability for acting 

responsibility on public lands.

Greater understanding of the 

importance of open space 

Greater appreciation of this 

site’s recreation heritage and 

how managers care for it.

Greater community involvement 

in recreation and other land use 

decisions. Enhanced 

awareness and understanding o

nature. Greater environmental 

awareness and protection of 

natural resources. 

Improved understanding of how 

this community’s urban-rural 

interface impacts its quality of 

life.

Heightened sense of satisfaction 

with our community. Enhanced 

lifestyle. Enlarged sense of 

community dependency on 

public lands.

Increased desirability as a place 

to live. Increased property 
Appendix S

1169

that things are not going to 

change too much.

Relishing group affiliation 

and togetherness.

environmental awareness and 

sensitivity.

Greater personal enrichment 

through involvement with other 

people with similar interests.

and recreation to our 

community.

Improved group cooperation.

values due to open space and 

recreation. Some increased 

local-tourism revenue.

Greater sense of responsibility 

for one’s quality of life. Greater 

environmental awareness and 

sensitivity.
Appendix S

1170

Harquahala Mountains ERMA 

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

N/A Local and regional motorized and non-motorized recreation.

Harquahala Mountains ERMA 

MARKET NICHE

Motorized recreation on designated routes and associated with dispersed hiking, sightseeing, hunting and camping 

opportunities. Emphasis on Resource Protection and Land Health Standards, OHV designation route use compliance.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

By 2010, inventory, evaluate, designate and sign a motorized route network that is sustainable within the Harquahala 

Mountains ERMA. Motorized recreation use will be compatible with Land Health Standards for the area. 100% of 

motorized users will be aware of OHV designations and motorized use rules though visitor information, park ranger 

contact and peer group/volunteer outreach. Plan to achieve 95 percent visitor compliance with motorized recreation 

rules with an 80% favorable realization of our visitor’s desired dispersed semi-primitive motorized experiences. 

Document less than five motorized wilderness boundary intrusions per year and less than 10 motorized incursions into 

closed OHV areas.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Dispersed trailbased OHV riding

Dispersed Hunting, 

Camping, Hiking 

and Sightseeing, 

both motorized and 

non-motorized.

N/A

Many opportunities and 

outcome exist, but we are not 

targeting any specific ones. We 

are managing for custodial use 

which includes: conflicts, 

resource protection, and public 

safety in an ERMA.

N/A

Many opportunities and outcome exist, but we are not 

targeting any specific ones. We are managing for 

custodial use. 

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1171

Remoteness: SPNM, SPM, RN

Naturalness: RN, SPM, SPNM

Facilities: SPNM, SPM, RN

Contacts: SPNM, SPM, RN

Group Size: P, SPNM, SPM, RN

Evidence of Use: SPNM, SPM

Mechanized Use: SPM

Management Controls: SPNM, 

SPM, RN, R

Visitor Services: SPM, RN, R

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management

Comply with the managerial and social settings described in the land use plan, such as VRM 

designations, ROS settings, and lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Define, designate, implement and monitor a designated and comprehensive travel route 

network for motorized recreation experiences and access. Authorize appropriate SRPs that 

little effect current recreation settings and motorized route networks. Allow facilities when 

needed to protect resources, provide for visitor safety, improve the quality of recreation 

experiences or to resolve social conflicts. Apply Tread Lightly, Leave-No-Trace and Adaptive 

Management Practices as described in the land use plan. Maintain the 14-day camping

Limit and current or future Land Health Standards.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Sign all special management areas, motorized and non-motorized routes, and install info 

kiosks. Prepare and distribute Access Guides. Partner with OHV clubs and other peer 

user groups to develop maintenance and management agreements on the route network.

Monitoring

Measure current disturbances and monitor for change (Rapid Site Assessment for entire 

ERMA). Initiate visitor surveys to determine satisfaction. Monitor for complaints from other 

agencies and resource staff. Monitor with citizen collaboration. Monitor wilderness 

boundaries and closed OHV areas.

Administration

Work with user, volunteers, and OHV peer groups to maintain signs and provide 

educational outreach while conducting visitor contacts. Continue to implement 

Management, Marketing and Monitoring efforts as described above.
Appendix S

1172

RECREATION SETTINGS: Harquahala 

Mountains ERMA 

 

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and 

interpretive signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group

Greater than 50 people 

per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 3-6 encounters/day off 7-14 encounters/day off 15-19 encounters/day off People seem to be Other people consistently 

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1173

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

in view

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight vegetation 

trampling at campsites & travel 

routes. Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and occasional 

litter and soil erosion. 

Vegetation becoming worn

Well-worn soils and vegetation, 

but often gravel surfaced for 

erosion control. Litter may be 

frequent

Paved routes protect soils and 

vegetation, but noise, litter, and 

facility impacts are pervasive

A busy place with what seems 

like constant noise. Unavoidable 

litter seems to be a lifestyle 

choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite.

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and 

describes experiences and 

benefits available. Area 

personnel do on-site 

education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present
Appendix S

1174

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1175

Harcuvar Mountains ERMA 

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

N/A Local and regional dispersed motorized recreation.

Harcuvar Mountains ERMA 

MARKET NICHE

Motorized recreation on designated routes associated with dispersed hiking, sightseeing, hunting and camping 

opportunities. Emphasis on Resource Protection.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

By 2011, inventory, evaluate, designate and sign a motorized route network that is sustainable within the Harcuvar 

Mountains ERMA. Motorized recreation use will be compatible with Land Health Standards for the area. 100% of 

motorized uses will be aware of the OHV designations and motorized use rules though visitor information, park ranger 

contact and peer group/volunteer outreach. Plan to achieve 95 percent visitor compliance with motorized recreation 

rules with an 80% favorable realization of our visitor’s desired dispersed semi-primitive motorized experiences.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Dispersed trailbased OHV riding

Dispersed Hunting, 

Camping, Hiking 

and Sightseeing –

all activities mainly 

vehicle based.

N/A

Many opportunities and 

outcomes exist, but we are not 

targeting any specific ones. We 

are managing for custodial use 

which includes: conflicts, 

resource protection, and public 

safety in an ERMA.

N/A

Many opportunities and outcomes exist, but we are 

not targeting any specific ones. We are managing 

for custodial use.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1176

Remoteness: SPNM, SPM

Naturalness: RN, SPM, SPNM

Facilities: SPM

Contacts: SPNM, SPM

Group Size: SPNM, SPM

Evidence of Use: SPNM, SPM

Mechanized Use: SPM

Management Controls: 

RN, SPM

Visitor Services: SPM

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management

Comply with the managerial and social settings described in the land use plan, such as VRM 

designations, ROS settings, and lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Define, designate, implement and monitor a designated and comprehensive travel route 

network for motorized recreation experiences and access. Authorize appropriate SRPs that 

little effect current recreation settings and motorized route networks. Allow facilities when 

needed to protect resources, provide for visitor safety, improve the quality of recreation 

experiences or to resolve social conflicts. Apply Tread Lightly, Leave-No-Trace and Adaptive 

Management Practices as described in the land use plan. Maintain the 14-day camping

Limit and current or future Land Health Standards.

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Sign all special management areas, motorized and non-motorized routes, and install info 

kiosks. Prepare and distribute Access Guides. Partner with OHV clubs and other peer 

user groups to develop maintenance and management agreements on the route network.

Monitoring Measure current disturbance and monitor for change. Use visitor surveys to determine 

satisfaction. Monitor for complaints from other agencies and resource staff. Monitor with 

citizen collaboration. 

Administration

Work with user, volunteers, and OHV peer groups to maintain signs and provide 

educational outreach while conducting visitor contacts. Continue to implement 

Management, Marketing and Monitoring efforts as described above.
Appendix S

1177

RECREATION SETTINGS: Harcuvar Mountains 

 ERMA

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive 

signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

fewer than 6 encounters 

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campsites) and 7-15 

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15-19 

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

contact is still intermittent

Other people consistently 

in view

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1178

per day on travel routes encounters/day on travel 

routes

encounters/day en route more encounters/day en 

route

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight vegetation 

trampling at campsites & travel 

routes. Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and occasional 

litter and soil erosion. 

Vegetation becoming worn

Well-worn soils and vegetation, 

but often gravel surfaced for 

erosion control. Litter may be 

frequent

Paved routes protect soils and 

vegetation, but noise, litter, and 

facility impacts are pervasive

A busy place with what seems 

like constant noise. Unavoidable 

litter seems to be a lifestyle 

choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite.

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and 

describes experiences and 

benefits available. Area 

personnel do on-site 

education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED

SETTING
Appendix S

1179

BLACK CANYON - Special Recreation Management Area

PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY MARKET

Destination Local, regional and national non-motorized recreationists

Black Canyon Trail Recreation Management Zone 

MARKET NICHE

Non-motorized recreation – hiking, equestrian, and mountain bike riding, including long 

distance hikes and rides.

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE

By 2016, establish and maintain a high quality non-motorized recreation experience for hikers, equestrians and 

mountain bikers through the Black Canyon Corridor. Provide loops, links, and trailheads for destination, point-topoint and long distanced non-motorized travel through completion of a professionally developed and maintained 

trail. Promote the preservation of, public access to, and appreciation of the open space, landscapes and historic 

setting of the Black Canyon Corridor. By 2007, develop and maintain partnerships between BLM, the Black 

Canyon Trail Coalition, Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, user groups and communities.

Activity

Opportunities

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes

Hiking, 

Backpacking, 

Equestrian, and 

Mountain Biking.

Community 

Partnerships and 

Coalitions.

Savoring the total sensory 

receptors such as sight, 

sound, and smell of a natural 

landscape.

Enjoying a wide variety of 

environments within a single 

recreation area.

Feeling good about the way 

our natural resources are 

being managed and how this 

attraction is being used and 

enjoyed. 

Enjoying getting needed 

physical exercise.

Personal: Enhanced awareness and 

understanding of nature. Greater sense of 

responsibility for one’s quality of life. Greater 

environmental awareness and sensitivity. 

Improved physical and metal well being.

Community/Social: Enhanced lifestyle. 

Greater personal enrichment through 

involvement with other people of similar 

interests.

Environmental: Greater environmental 

awareness and protection of natural resources. 

Closer relationship with natural world.

Economic: Increased local-tourism revenue.

PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER

Physical Social Administrative

Remoteness: SPM, RN, R, U

Naturalness: SPM, RN, R, U

Facilities: SPM, RN

Contacts: SPNM, SPM, RN, R

Group Size: SPNM, SPM, RN, 

R, U

Evidence of Use: SPNM, SPM

Mechanized Use: P, SPNM

Management Controls: SPM, 

RN, R

Visitor Services: SPNM, SPM, 

RN, R

ACTIVITY PLANNING (IMPLEMENTATION) FRAMEWORK

Management Issue R-O-W for the BCT. Acquire easements for access to the trail. Retain a 1⁄4 mile 

corridor along the trail for a permanent protected trail location. Develop access and up 

to eight trailheads. Include BCT in the National Recreation Trail System. 

Experience Opportunities

& Outcomes

Benefit Opportunities

& Outcomes
Appendix S

1180

Match-up

Marketing 

( inc. education & 

interpretation)

Work with citizen groups, communities, the Black Canyon Trail Coalition 

membership, national hiking and mountain bike associations, and surrounding land 

users to fund, maintain, and construct the BCT. 

Monitoring Conduct period assessments annually along the trail to determine new alignments, 

loops, connectivity, and maintenance needs.

Administration

Combine management, marketing and monitoring goals above, along with 

aggressive partnership building and community involvement.
Appendix S

1181

RECREATION SETTINGS Black Canyon Trail

PHYSICAL – Resources & Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

a. Remoteness

>3 miles from 

any road

>1⁄2 mile from any 

kind of road, but 

not as distant as 3 

miles, and no road 

is in sight

On or near 4WD 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 

mile from all 

improved roads, 

though they may not 

be in sight

On or near improved country 

roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all highways

On or near primary 

highways, but still within a 

rural area

On or near primary highways, 

municipal streets, and roads within 

towns or cities

b. Naturalness

Undisturbed 

natural landscape

Naturallyappearing 

landscape having 

modifications not 

readily noticeable

Naturally-appearing 

landscape except for 

obvious primitive 

roads

Landscape partially modified by 

roads, utility lines, etc., but none 

overpower natural landscape 

features

Natural landscape 

substantially modified by 

agriculture or industrial 

development

Urbanized developments dominate 

this landscape

c. Facilities

 None

Some primitive 

trails made of 

native materials 

such as log bridges 

and carved wooden 

signs

Maintained and 

marked trails, simple 

trailhead 

developments, 

improved signs, and 

very basic toilets

Improved yet modest, rustic 

facilities such as campgrounds, 

restrooms, trails, and 

interpretive signs

Modern facilities such as 

campgrounds, group 

shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities such 

as laundry, groceries, and book stores

SOCIAL – Visitor Use & Users: Character of recreation & tourism use

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

d. Group Size (other than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 

people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

e. Contacts (w/other groups)

Fewer than 3 encounters 

per day at campsites and 

3-6 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

7-14 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., staging 

15-19 encounters/day off 

travel routes(e.g., 

People seem to be 

everywhere, but human 

Other people consistently 

in view

EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED SETTINGS
Appendix S

1182

fewer than 6 encounters 

per day on travel routes

campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel 

routes

areas) and 15-19 

encounters/day en route

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters/day en 

route

contact is still intermittent

f. Evidence of Use

Only footprints may be 

observed

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites & travel routes. 

Only infrequent litter

Vehicle tracks and 

occasional litter and soil 

erosion. Vegetation 

becoming worn

Well-worn soils and 

vegetation, but often gravel 

surfaced for erosion control. 

Litter may be frequent

Paved routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but noise, 

litter, and facility impacts 

are pervasive

A busy place with what 

seems like constant noise. 

Unavoidable litter seems 

to be a lifestyle choice

ADMINISTRATIVE – Administrative & Service Setting: How public land managers, county commissioners and municipal governments, and local 

businesses care for the area and serve visitors and local residents

Primitive Semi-Primitive

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

g. Visitor Services

None is available onsite

Basic maps, but area 

personnel seldom available 

to provide on-site assistance

Area brochures and maps, 

plus area personnel 

occasionally present to 

provide on-site assistance

Information materials 

describe recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are periodically 

available

Everything described to the 

left in this row, and describe 

experiences and benefits 

available. Area personnel do 

on-site education

Everything described to 

the left in this row, plus 

regularly scheduled onsite outdoor skills 

demonstrations and 

clinics

h. Management Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. No use 

limits. Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access points 

on basic user ethics. May 

have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement 

presence rare

Occasional regulatory 

signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence

Rules clearly posted with 

some seasonal or day-ofweek use restrictions. 

Periodic enforcement 

presence

Regulations prominent. 

Total use limited by permit, 

reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence

Continuous enforcement 

to redistribute use and 

reduce user conflicts, 

hazards, and resource 

damage

i. Mechanized Use

None whatsoever

Mountain bikes and perhaps 

other mechanized use, but 

all is non-motorized

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, 

mechanized use

2WD vehicles 

predominant, but also 

4WD and non-motorized, 

mechanized use

Ordinary highway auto and 

truck traffic is characteristic

Wide variety of street 

vehicle and highway 

traffic is ever-present

`

 EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED SETTING
Appendix S

1183

 

Targeted Opportunities/Outcomes

Recreation Management Zone - Black Canyon Trail

NNiiicchhee:: LLooccaalll,,, rreeggiiioonnaalll aannddnnaatt iiioonnaalll ddeesstt iiinnaatt iiioonn ttrraaiiilll--bbaasseeddooppppoorrttuunniiitt iiieess ffoorr hhiiikkeerrss,,, mmoouunnttaaiiinnbbiiikkeerrssaannddhhoorrssee

rriiiddeerrss,,, iiinnccllluuddiiinngg llloonnggddiiissttaanncceerriiiddeess...

AAccttiiivviiittyyOOppppoorrttuunniiittiiieess Mountain biking, hiking, equestrian and backpacking

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Savoring the total 

sensory perceptions of 

sight, sound, and smell 

of a natural landscape.

Enjoying having easy 

access to natural 

landscapes.

Enjoying having a wide 

variety of environments 

within a single 

recreation area.

Enhanced awareness and 

understanding of nature.

Greater environmental 

aware-ness and sensitivity. 

Greater sense of 

responsibility for one’s own 

quality of life.

Learning more about things 

here and enjoying some 

needed metal rest and 

physical exercise.

Increased awareness 

and protection of 

natural landscapes.

A more outdoororiented lifestyle and a 

closer relationship with 

the natural world.

Greater awareness 

and understanding of 

nature.

Greater cultivation of a 

natural resource 

stewardship ethic.

Encouraging others to help 

safeguard our lifestyle and 

quality of life.

Greater community 

ownership and stewardship 

of park, recreation and 

natural resources. 

Maintenance of distinctive 

recreation settings and 

character.
Appendix S

1184

EExxppeerriieennccee

// CCoommbbiinnaattiioonnooff

EExxppeerriieenncceess

PPeerrssoonnaall

BBeenneeffiittss

OOnn--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

OOffff--ssiittee

BBeenneeffiittss

Enjoying getting some 

needed physical exercise, 

and perhaps strenuous 

physical exercise

Improved mental and physical 

well/being

Diminished mental anxiety Increased work productivity

Enhanced lifestyle. Improved 

physical fitness and health 

maintenance.

Enjoying participating in 

group outdoor events

Avoiding compromising 

the quality of life here in 

the Black Canyon 

Corridor.

Feeling good about the 

way our natural resources 

are being managed and 

how this attraction is being 

used and enjoyed.

Just knowing this 

attraction in or near my 

community.

Being in control of things 

that happen

Greater sense of adventure 

and a more outdoor-oriented 

lifestyle.

Greater sense of responsibility 

for my own quality of life and 

an enlarged sense of personal 

accountability for acting 

responsibility on public lands.

Improved team work and 

cooperation.

Greater awareness that this 

community is a special place.

Increased independence and 

autonomy.

Improved appreciation and a 

closer relationship with the 

natural world and involvement 

with other people doing 

similar activities.

Maintenance of community’s 

distinctive recreation 

character.

Better sense of my place 

within the community.

Heightened sense of 

satisfaction with our 

community.

Maintenance of open space 

and distinctive small-town 

Improved skills for outdoor 

enjoyment with others, and 

stronger ties with my family and 

friends.

Greater understanding of the 

importance of recreation and 

tourism to our community. 

Increased local-tourism revenue.

Greater community involvement 

in recreation and other land use 

decisions.

Enlarged sense of community 

dependency on public lands.

Improved understanding of how 

this community’s urban-rural 
Appendix S

1185

 

Relishing group affiliation 

and togetherness.

Greater personal enrichment 

through involvement with other 

people with similar interests.

atmosphere.

Improved group cooperation.

interface impacts its quality of 

life.

Greater community involvement 

in recreation and other land use 

decisions.
Appendix T

1186

Appendix T - Off-Highway Vehicle Mitigation 

Examples 

 

Nature of the conflict with routes and use of routes

Conflict Typical mitigation measures

Typical mitigation is in order of possible implementation, not all measures may be used and not all may be listed.

Mitigation actions taken should be triggered as a result of monitoring and reaching identified thresholds.

Monitoring should be done before, during and after mitigation measures are implemented to identify trends.

Resource issues:

The physical location of a route is degrading riparian 

condition 1. Relocate the route to avoid the area

2. Harden or raise the route above water level if route is necessary and unable to be relocated

3. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible and make a plan for reclamation

Human use associated with a route is degrading 

riparian condition 1. Place information signs to request positive behavior (ie use only when dry etc)

2. Harden and/or raise the route above water level or place barriers to keep vehicle and people on routes

3. Relocate the route to allow riparian condition to improve

4. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible and make a plan for reclamation

Human use associated with a route is degrading 

desired plant communities 1. Place signs to encourage vehicles and people to stay on routes

2. Conduct public outreach regarding noxious weeds and conserving vegetation

3. Fence the area or place barriers to manage people

4. Develop a program to improve desired plant community

5. Close the route and make a plan for reclamation
Appendix T

1187

Human use associated with a route is degrading 

water quality 1. Review the situation to determine the source of degradation and monitor to determine severity

2. Place water control measures on the route

3. Take reasonable measure to further harden/stabilize the route

4. Reroute the route

5. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible

Human use on a route is determined to degrade a 

particular habitat 1. Request certain behavior from route users through signs and other information

2. Place limitations of use on the route (time/season of use, type of use, number of users, behavioral requirements)

3. Reroute the route

4. Replace habitat to offset problems caused by human use, some methods could be:

 a. Augment food/water sources

 b. Place barriers along route to protect specific habitat features

 c. Relocate or expand reproduction sites to be away from the route

5. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible, make plan for reclamation

Human use associated with a route is determined to 

degrade a Special Status Species' habitat 1. Review management plans for the species and follow recommendations

 Design mitigation plans to address:

1) Temporary conditions

2) Seasonal conditions

3) Year round conditions

2. Develop specific mitigation measures based on the site if species management plan is insufficient

3. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation

Human use associated with a route is determined to 

degrade Sonoran Desert Tortoise habitat 1. Physically relocate habitat disturbances and/or schedule permitted activities to occur during dormant periods

(Maintaining No-Net Loss habitat policy) 2. Engineer Tortoise fences and underpasses for Tortoise benefit

3. Acquire replacement habitat lands and funding for tortoise benefitting activities

4. Close unauthorized routes and make a plan for reclamation

Human use associated with a route is determined to 

degrade a Threatened and Endangered Species 

(T&E species) 1. Initiate consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service

2. Review recovery plan, implement mitigations as defined in plan
Appendix T

1188

3. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation

Dust caused on or near a route violates county, 

state or federal regulations 1. Determine a short term solution

 a. Monitor situation and determine severity of the problem

 b. Close the route or area temporarily to stop dust generation

 c. Stabilize the route using a county approved method

 d. Place signs requesting a certain behavior (ie no wheel spin, reduce speed)

2. Determine a long term solution

 a. Change formal maintenance interval on route consistent with use level

 b. Develop a localized outreach program

 c. Implement new technology as part of an area wide plan 

 d. Close route if suitable dust control is not possible, make plan for reclamation

Human use associated with a route is causing 

unnatural erosion rates 1. Review the route to determine cause and monitor to determine severity

2. Place water control measures on the route

3. Take reasonable measure to further harden or stabilize the route

4. Reroute the route

5. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible

Social Issues:

Speed differential causes conflict between 

recreationists and/or local residents 1. Place signs to raise awareness of lawful uses of the area.

2. Monitor situation on the ground and request law enforcement support if necessary

3. Conduct public outreach in an attempt change behavior

4. Review terrain and improve sight distances if possible

5. Redesign traffic flow by separating uses or limit by type or time of use
Appendix T

1189

Sound level causes conflict between recreationists 

and/or local residents 1. Place signs to raise awareness of sound issues

2. Monitor situation on the ground and request law enforcement support if necessary

3. Conduct public outreach in an attempt change behavior

4. Implement "Quiet Time" of use restrictions 

5. Reroute traffic to mimimize conflict

6. Place sound reducing barriers if applicable

7. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible

A route causes unacceptable changes to the desired 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum(ROS) setting (ex. 

unplanned OHV play areas, large party sites, dump 

sites, resource theft) 1. Investigate the cause and implement signage and law enforcement as necessary

2. Design mitigation plans to address:

1. Short term conditions

a. Implement new signing and public outreach to explain desired setting

b. Implement temporary use restrictions(ex. No overnight camping)

c. Issue emergency closure order, address conditions during closure

2. Long term conditions

a. Implement better signing and mapping protocols for this area

b. If no suitable mitigation is possible, ammend RMP to close the area

3. Close areas near the route contributing to the unacceptable changes such as unplanned 

OHV play areas, large party sites, dumping sites, resource theft etc

A proposed route is out of compliance with the 

Visual Resource Management(VRM) classification of 

the area 1. Evaluate the potential for and implement a method to make the route less noticeable such as landscaping.

2. If no suitable mitigation is possible, construction would not be allowed

A route causes unacceptable impacts to cultural or 

archeological resources 1. Stabilize the resource and begin data recovery

2. Fence one or both sides of the route to keep vehicles from pulling off the route onto a site

3. Interpret the resource to gain public support for protection

4. Work with AZ Site Stewards program for monitoring, increase law enforcment presence

5. Reroute the route to avoid further disturbance of the site
Appendix T

1190

6. Close the route if no mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation

Human use on a route causes unacceptable impacts 

to a designated wilderness (ex. vehicle trespass) 1. Improve signage along wilderness boundary

2. Implement short sections of fence in problem areas

3. Use technology to gather information for more detailed action

4. Use volunteers and law enforcement to improve compliance along boundaries

5. Place time of use limits on the route to encourage lawful use (ie daytime use only)

6. Close the route if no mitigation is possible

NLCS units

Human use on a route outside wilderness causes 

unacceptable impacts to a designated wilderness 

(ex. vehicle trespass) 1. Improve signage along wilderness boundary

2. Secure funding and resources to rehabilitate areas attracting trespass

3. Implement short sections of fence in problem areas

4. Use technology such as remote cameras and infrared counters to gather data for more detailed action

5. Engage volunteers and law enforcement to improve compliance along boundaries

6. Place time of use limits on the route to encourage lawful use (ie special event use only)

7. Close the route if no mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation

Human use on a route in a National monument

causes, or is expected to cause, harm to monument 

objects.

Archeological resources 1) Stabilize the site and begin data recovery.

(in monument) 2) Engineer fences and barriers to protect site if these features won't attract vandalism

3) Close the route if no mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation
Appendix T

1191

Biological resources - habitat 1) Protect the objects through the use of temporary closures until the situation can be mitigated.

(in monument) 2) Develop mitigation plans for:

 a. Short term conditions such as special events and unusual weather events that change visitor behavior

 Typical mitigations:

1) Implement habitat improvement projects with AZ Game and Fish Dept.

2) Issue a temporary closure order for the area

 b. Long term conditions such as increasing visitation due to development or increased popularity of the area

 Typical mitigations:

1) Implement visitor management tools to guide visitors to more developed 

areas

2) Implement resource conservation plans specific to the area.

Soil and Air resources 1) Implement interpretive signage and possibly speed limits to reduce dust and soil loss from dusting/erosion

(in monument) 2) Engineer water control features on the route; ensure intended access maintenance level is maintained

3) Use methods to reduce dust and/or harden the route to minimize soil loss/dust (within ROS allocation)

4) Issue temporary closure orders for seasonal conditions (excessive wet or dry conditions)

5) Close route if no mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation
Appendix U

1192

Appendix U – Special Status Species

Special status species (other than federally listed), their status, habitat and occurrence in the planning area are described in the following table:

Common Name Classification Occurrence and Habitat Use in Planning Areas

Mammals

Allen's Big-eared Bat BS Potential to occur, roosts in caves and mines

Big Free-tailed Bat BS Potential to occur, roosts in caves and mines

California Leaf-nosed Bat S Occurs seasonally roosts in caves and mines

Cave Myotis BS Occurs seasonally roosts in caves and mines

Fringed Myotis BS Occurs seasonally roosts in caves and mines

Long-eared Myotis BS Potential to occur, roosts in caves and mines

Long-legged Myotis BS Potential to occur, roosts in caves and mines

Little Brown Bat BS Potential to occur, roosts in caves and mines

Pocketed Free-tailed Bat BS Potential to occur, roosts in caves and mines

Red Bat S Potential to occur, roosts in riparian trees

Small-footed Myotis BS Potential to occur, roosts in caves and mines

Southern Yellow Bat S Potential to occur, roosts in trees

Spotted Bat S Extremely rare, roosts in crevices, caves and mines

Birds

American Bittern S Potential to occur, riparian areas

Baird's Sparrow S Potential to occur during migration

Belted Kingfisher S Uncommon along riparian areas, non-breeding

Burrowing Owl BS Uncommon but widespread in relatively open areas

Common Black-Hawk S Nests in large trees in riparian areas
Appendix U

1193

Common Name Classification Occurrence and Habitat Use in Planning Areas

Ferruginous Hawk S Uncommon in winter or during migration

Great Egret S Uncommon along riparian areas and at Lake Pleasant 

Least Bittern S Uncommon along riparian areas and at Lake Pleasant

Loggerhead Shrike BS Fairly common all habitats

Northern Goshawk S Potential to occur, higher elevations

Osprey S Uncommon along riparian areas, non-breeding

Peregrine Falcon S Uncommon or wintering, no breeding documented

Pine Grosbeak S Uncommon wintering

Snowy Egret S Uncommon along riparian areas and at Lake Pleasant

Sprague's Pipit S Potential to occur during migration

White-faced Ibis BS Infrequent in winter, uses riparian and stock tanks

Amphibians and Reptiles

Arizona Skink S Mid elevation chaparral and along some riparian areas

Arizona Toad S Seasonally and locally common, lower elevations, around water

Chuckwalla BS Locally common, lower elevation boulder areas

Gila Monster BS Widespread but uncommon, generally below 5,000 feet in elevation

Lowland Leopard Frog S

Riparian areas, springs and stock tanks, populations are generally down 

and some local populations have disappeared over the past 10 years due to 

the spread of chytrid fungus

Mexican Garter Snake S

Historic along Agua Fria River, not documented there in over 10 years, 

may be extirpated, riparian areas with abundant emergent vegetation

Rosy Boa BS Widespread but uncommon, lower elevation boulder areas

Fishes

Desert Sucker BS Common, deeper pools in most perennial streams

Longfin Dace BS Common, most streams with perennial water 

Speckled Dace BS Upper elevations of Sycamore, Little Ash and Dry Creeks on the AFNM 
Appendix U

1194

Common Name Classification Occurrence and Habitat Use in Planning Areas

during wet years. During dry years, distribution recedes upstream to

National Forest reaches of these streams.

Plants

Giant Sedge BS Lower elevation springs, seeps and riparian areas

California Flannelbush BS Rare on canyon slopes 3,500-6000 feet in elevation

Murphey Agave BS

Sonoran Desertscrub generally between Lake Pleasant and Black Canyon 

City. Associated with prehistoric Native American sites.

Scientific names are presented in Appendix H.

Classification

BS - BLM Sensitive, Updated BLM Sensitive Species List for Arizona (Instruction Memorandum No. AZ-2000-018, Change 1)

S - State Sensitive, Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (AGFD, Draft 1996)
Appendix V

1195

Appendix V – Additional Information for the 

Black Canyon Utility Corridor 

Changes made in Alternative E from the DRMP/DEIS to the PRMP/FEIS for the Black Canyon Utility Corridor are analyzed in this appendix. 

The following is a table that compares resources within the two corridor proposals:

Table 1 – Comparison of Resources by Corridor

Resource DRMP/DEIS

Alt. E 

Corridor

PRMP/FEIS

Alt E. 

Corridor

Riparian Habitat Antelope Creek 1.6 miles 2 miles

Black Canyon Creek 1.2 miles 1.6 miles

Bumble Bee Creek 0.7 miles 0.7 miles

Total 3.5 miles 4.3 miles

Routes Primary Road Paved 0.1 miles 0.1 miles

Primary Road Unpaved 4.2 miles 6 miles

Secondary Road Paved 1.3 miles 1.3 miles

Secondary Road Unpaved 2 miles 3.9 miles

Single Track 2.8 miles 0.7 miles

Tertiary Road Unpaved 58.6 miles 74.5 miles

Total 68.8 miles 86.3 miles

Desert Tortoise Habitat Category 2 1480 acres 1540 acres

Category 3 860 acres 820 acres

Total 2340 acres 2360 acres

Vegetation Communities Great Basin Mixed Grass –

Mixed Scrub

160 acres 270 acres

Interior Chaparral – Mixed 

Evergreen Sclerophyll

2050 acres 2190 acres

Interior Chaparral (Mixed)–

Mixed Grass – Scrub 

1030 acres 1840 acres
Appendix V

1196

Complex

Interior Chaparral – Shrub 

Live Oak – Pointleaf 

Manzanita

0 acres 10 acres

Semi Desert Mixed GrassMixed Scrub1300 acres 1440 acres

Sonoran Palo Verde- Mixed 

Cacti- Mixed Scrub

11,840 acres 12,210 acres

Total 16,380 acres 17,960 acres

Area of Corridor Potentially 

Visible (as calculated from GIS 

viewshed analysis)

Observation points at:

Black Canyon City 600 acres 640 acres

Interstate 17 9050 acres 9390 acres

Spring Valley 140 acres 190 acres

Sunset Point 3800 acres 5170 acres

Area containing wilderness 

characteristics

540 acres 740 acres

Black Canyon Trail 1969 Secretary of Interior 

Designated corridor

80 acres 80 acres

1996 Proposed or 

Constructed Trail

0 miles 4.7 miles

The table above shows the revised corridor location in the PRMP/FEIS would contain 0.8 more miles of riparian habitat than the corridor in 

Alternative E of the DRMP/DEIS.

The revised corridor would contain 17.5 miles more vehicle routes, 15.9 miles more tertiary unpaved routes, which constitute the majority of 

routes used by recreationists.

The revised corridor would contain 60 acres more of category 2 desert tortoise habitat and 40 acres less of category 3 habitat.

The vegetation communities within each corridor are very similar in extent with small changes in acres for the revised corridor as compared with 

the corridor analyzed in Alternative E of the DRMP/DEIS. 

VRM inventory conducted for the DRMP/DEIS placed the entire area in an inventory class II. Design limitations of most utilities that would be 

constrained to use utility corridors make them difficult or impossible to conform to VRM class II standards. Viewshed analysis was conducted 

using GIS data using observation points in four locations – Black Canyon City, Sunset Point Rest Area, along Interstate 17, and from the 
Appendix V

1197

community of Spring Valley. Comparison of the two corridors shows visibility of either corridor is similar from all locations, with slightly more 

acres of the revised corridor being visible from all locations than the Alternative E corridor. Visibility acres cannot be added to determine total 

visibility of each corridor because many places may be visible from more than one location.

Both corridors have some area that was inventoried as containing wilderness characteristics and would be allocated to maintain those 

characteristics in the Preferred Alternative of the DRMP/DEIS. The corridor described in the DRMP/DEIS encompasses 540 acres with these 

characteristics, whereas the revised corridor location would encompass 740 acres, 200 additional acres.

The Black Canyon Trail was dedicated by the Secretary of Interior in 1969. As a consequence of changing land jurisdiction, the actual location of 

the trail has deviated from the original secretarial order. The table above compares how much of both the secretarial trail corridor and the current 

trail location fall within each corridor. Each of the utility corridors contains the same number of acres of the Secretarial trail corridor, while the 

revised corridor contains 4.7 miles of current trail.

There are no existing or proposed Special Area Designations within either corridor proposal.

There are no known paleontological resources within either corridor proposal.

There is no Wild Horse or Burro Herd Management Areas within either corridor proposal.

No energy resources are known to occur within either of the corridor proposals. The primary purpose of a utility corridor is to support the 

transmission of energy from areas of production to consumers.

Impacts

Impact analysis conducted in the DRMP/DEIS pertaining to utility corridors in general and the Black Canyon Utility corridor specifically can be 

found in document sections: 

Impacts to lands and realty can be found in section 4.7.2,

Impacts to soils in 4.8.2,

Impacts to air quality in 4.9.2, 

Impacts to water quality in 4.10.2, 

Impacts on biological resources in 4.11.2, 

Impacts on cultural resources in 4.12.2, 

Impacts on paleontological resources in 4.13.2, 

Impacts on recreation resources in 4.14.2, 

Impacts on visual resources in 4.15.2, 

Impacts on rangeland management in 4.16.2, 
Appendix V

1198

Impacts on minerals and energy resources in 4.17.2, 

Impacts on fire and fuels resources in 4.18.2, 

Impacts on wild horses and burros in 4.19.2, 

Impacts on travel management in 4.20.2, 

Impacts on wilderness characteristics in 4.21.2, 

Impacts on the social and economic conditions of the area in 4.22.1.

The revised corridor location would be in essentially the same area as the one in the preferred alternative of the DRMP/DEIS and the impacts 

would be essentially the same as described in Chapter 4. As a result, the overall cumulative effects of either corridor on resources and uses would 

be equivalent.

A comparison of these impacts is listed below.

The corridor represents an improved location to long term management of major rights-of-way. The corridor allows for further 

development of utility projects to meet the demand of the large and rapidly growing Phoenix Greater Metropolitan Area, while confining 

those utility projects to an area where environmental impacts can be minimized.

Development of utilities within either corridor could disturb soils in the same ways by creating increased erosion and reduced 

productivity. Impacts to soils would be essentially the same in either corridor proposal. 

Construction activities associated with development of utilities within either corridor could degrade air quality by contributing pollutants 

to the air and increasing the emission of fugitive dust. Removal of vegetation and exposure of the soil surface to wind erosion can also 

contribute to air quality degradation. Air quality impacts would be essentially the same in either corridor proposal. 

Water quality degradation is most likely to occur due to soil erosion increasing turbidity of streams. Water quality impacts would be 

essentially the same in either corridor proposal. 

The issuance of utility rights-of-ways and their development can cause destruction of wildlife habitat and, depending on the type of 

development, could degrade habitat quality through fragmentation and increased human activities. Both proposals would have no effect to 

any listed threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species of plant or wildlife. No known listed species nor critical habitat for any 

listed species occurs within either corridor proposal. The riparian areas along Antelope Creek and Bumble Bee Creek are in both corridor 

alternatives so the potential impacts would be similar. The desert tortoise habitat at the southern end of the area is included in both 

corridors so the potential impacts would be similar. The total amount of wildlife habitat is essentially the same for both alternatives thus 

the potential impacts to wildlife habitat would be unchanged.

Existing information indicates that there would be little difference between the two alternatives as they affect cultural resources. 

Adjustments were made to the corridor boundaries to exclude known sensitive cultural resources from the revised corridor. Neither 

alternative would constrain any proposed cultural resource related uses or management actions.

Utility development can affect recreation by increasing or reducing access to areas and primarily through changing the characteristics of 

the landscape by creating new roads or other facilities. Both corridor proposals are in the same general area and would generally have the 

same impacts to recreation. 
Appendix V

1199

Allocation of a utility corridor itself has no affect on the Black Canyon Trail. 

Development of utilities within either corridor has the same potential for degrading visual resources. The boundary of the revised corridor 

proposal was purposely kept west of the rim of Black Mesa so as to minimize the potential visibility of future utility developments from 

both Interstate 17 and the Sunset Point Rest Area, a popular scenic overlook for the area. 

Limitations of access to minerals along with the physical facilities associated with the utility can affect potential mineral extraction. 

However, since both corridors are in the same general area, impacts to mineral resources would be essentially the same. 

Development of utilities within a corridor has the potential to increase fire occurrence and have both short and long term effects to fuels. 

Because both corridors are in the same general area, containing the same fire potential and regimes, the impacts of either corridor would 

be the same. 

During construction and during the operation and maintenance of equipment and facilities, existing public access points may be closed or 

restricted and some new routes may be created. Either corridor would have essentially the same impacts to travel management. 

Development of utilities in areas that contain wilderness characteristics could potentially degrade the quality of those characteristics. 

Though the revised corridor location contains more acres of allocation to maintain wilderness characteristics, (740 acres versus 540 in the 

DRMP/DEIS corridor) potential impacts are essentially the same for each corridor. 

The revised corridor location potentially improves long term economic conditions in central Arizona by providing a more suitable location 

for future utility development than the corridor analyzed in the DRMP/DEIS. Limitations or constraints to energy transmission to the 

Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area could have broad economic impacts. By relocating the corridor to be suitable for more types of utility 

development, those potential impacts could be avoided.

Development of utility projects is often controversial in nearby communities for reasons of visibility of the utility facilities and potential 

safety issues both during construction and long term operations. Since both corridors are essentially the same in relation to communities 

in the area, the social affects of either corridor would be the same. 

Cumulative Impacts

Both corridor proposals would exclude future utility development from the monument, limiting cumulative impacts to outside the 

monument.

Within either corridor, the potential cumulative impacts of utility development would be the same. 

At present, another known major action currently being analyzed in the area is the future expansion of Interstate 17 from 4 lanes (two each 

direction.) Several alternatives are being studied for this expansion. If the I-17 expansion proposal were to select lanes along Bumblebee 

Creek or in that valley area, they would be constructed in either corridor proposal which would create additive effect of the roadway and 

future utilities. This affect could degrade visual resources, recreation experiences, and could change the overall character of the area. 

However, the cumulative affects would be essentially the same for either corridor.
Index

1200