Agua Fria and Bradshaw-Harquahala Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 2005 

Errata for Published Documents 

 In Section 2.2.1.13 on page 42, paragraph 8, the reference to Map 2-1 should be to Map 2-11. 

 In Section 2.4.2.2.3.9 on page 112, paragraph 4, the reference to Map 2-32 should be to Map 2-49. 

 In Section 2.6.2.2.4.6 on page 203, paragraph 2 and in Section 2.6.2.2.4.9 on page 204, paragraphs 1, 

2, 4, and 5, the reference to Map 2-86 indicates routes, however, routes were omitted from this map. 

 In Section 2.7.2.7 on page 240, paragraph 2, the reference to http://www.gpoacess.gov/cfr/index.htm

is misspelled, it should be http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.htm. 

 In Section 3.12 on page 412, paragraphs 7 and 10, the reference to Map 3-17 should be to Map 3-14. 

 In Section 3.12 on page 413, paragraph 5, the reference to Map 3-20 should be to Map 3-16. 

 In Section 3.3.4 on page 392, paragraph 2, the reference to Figure 2.2 should be to Map 2-3. 

 In Section 3.13 on page 414, paragraph 5, the reference to Figure 2.1 should be to Map 3-17. 

 In Section 4.17 on page 574, paragraph 6 and page 575, paragraph 5, the reference to Map 3-17 

should be to Map 3-14. 

 In Section 4.17 on page 576, last paragraph, the reference to Map 3-20 should be to Map 3-16. 

 In Appendix L, on page 753, last paragraph, the sentence containing the reference to Appendix B 

should be deleted. 

 In Appendix L, on page 754, paragraph 3, replace the statement “Refer to Appendix C for a map 

depicting the two land use allocations for fire.” with “Refer to Map 3-17 for a depiction of the two 

land use allocations for fire.” 

 In Appendix L, on page 756, the first paragraph containing references to Appendices D, E, and F 

should be deleted. 

 In Appendix P, on page 792, first paragraph, the link 

http://fire.r9.fws.gov/ifcc/ESR/handbook/4PolicyGuidance.htm has moved to 

http://fire.r9.fws.gov/ifcc/ESR/handbook/. 

 Map 2-69 is titled “Peeple Valley Management Unit” but should say “Peeples Valley Management 

Unit.” 


Abstract 

ABSTRACT 

The Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS) 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 have been 

used to develop and analyze the Alternatives in this DRMP/DEIS. 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 Preferred Alternative, provides for a balance between authorized resource use 

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

Major issues addressed in the DRMP/DEIS include identification of lands that would be made available 

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

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

resources. 

Summary 

s-i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

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

Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS) is being prepared to provide guidance on current and future 

management decisions for the BLM’s Phoenix Field Office (PFO). These plans will represent the 

culmination of many months of concerted planning efforts on the part of BLM PFO staff, BLM 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. Any of the proposed action alternatives outlined in the tables that follow, as a distillation of the 

combined thought, effort, and research from all those involved, will enable BLM to manage both the 

newly designated Agua Fria National Monument (AFNM) as well as consolidate management of several 

existing areas adjacent to the Phoenix metropolitan area into 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 RMP/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, 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 BLMadministered lands located within the Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Areas will undoubtedly receive increasing pressure. The management decisions set forth in these plans, 

after considerable deliberation on the part of BLM and its partners are believed to provide the broadest 

possible consensus to wisely guide management of these very valuable resources. 
Summary 

s-ii 
Summary 

s-iii 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of preparing the Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala RMP 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 RMP 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 occurred. 

Planning Issues and Management Concerns 

Identified during Scoping 

The most important step in developing an 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 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 1 and 2 depict the most 

frequently mentioned issues for each planning area. 
Summary 

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 EIS 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 found to be eligible for Wild and Scenic River consideration. 

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 it was not 

within 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.
Summary 

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 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 recreational 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 historic 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 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 monument for their survival. 

Minerals 

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

These claims are held by prospecting clubs who hold club events on the claims several times a year.
Summary 

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 no hazard to BLM lands or users. The greater issue is 

with trash dumping on and around the monument. Besides the unsightliness of the dumping, the potential 

exists for 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 
Summary 

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 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 publics’ awareness of open space and scenic 

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

appearing as possible. 

Rangeland Management 

Public sentiment generally supports continuation of grazing. Concern was expressed concerning the 

health of riparian areas and the opportunities for 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 Area Designations 

Comments were received concerning sensitive resources and habitats. Several alternative methods for 

protecting these resources are explored in the EIS. 

Wilderness 

A number of comments were received concerning protecting lands that have wilderness values and 

characteristics.
Summary 

s-viii 

Minerals 

Mineral extraction within the planning areas is generally a minor activity. 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. The two active mining 

claims still within the Agua Fria National Monument are held by prospecting clubs. 

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 

lands is increasing. 

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 lands where it is appropriate is a concern. At the same time, 

the wildland-urban interface (WUI) is expanding as quickly as the population increase in central Arizona. 

Identifying and conducting the appropriate fire management for the specific location is a concern. 

Water and Air 

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

of central Arizona is within a PM10 nonattainment area, managing BLM lands to not contribute to 

increased air pollution is also of interest. 

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).
Summary 

s-ix 

Alternatives 

The basic goal of developing Alternatives is to prepare different combinations of management to address 

issues and to resolve conflicts among uses. Alternatives must meet the purpose and need; must be 

reasonable; must provide a mix of resource protection, use, and development; must be responsive to the 

issues; and must meet the established planning criteria. Each Alternative is a complete land use plan that 

provides a framework for multiple use management of the full spectrum of resources, resource uses, and 

programs present in the planning area. Under all Alternatives the BLM will manage the public lands in 

accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and BLM policy and guidance. 

Alternative A is the current management situation for both the monument and the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. Alternative A serves as a baseline for most resource and land-use allocations. 

Description of current management in a manner equivalent to the future management Alternatives B, C, 

and D permits the baseline to be compared with possible futures. 

Alternative B plans for increased public use and includes more recreation-related development, 

consistent with protection of monument resources. It also allows visitation and development within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 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 and is generally managed with more restrictive decisions than 

Alternative B. In the Bradshaw-Harquahala 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 is an amalgam of elements selected from the other Alternatives that have subsequently 

been studied and further refined. Alternative E is BLM’s preferred RMP Alternative. 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 29,230 acres for 

Sale, 9,525 for Exchange, 38,755 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 or enhance wilderness characteristics 

None One area for 

56,040 acres 

Five areas for 107,510 acres 

Six areas for 91,480 acres 

Seven areas for 96,420 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 – 446,440 acres Lease – 453,550 acres Sale – 469,680 acres 

Closed to: Location – 171,940 acres Lease – 171,680 acres Sale – 172,780 acres 
Summary 

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. 

BLM holds as a priority, collaborative management. This includes what Interior Secretary Gale Norton 

refers to as “The Four Cs:” consultation, cooperation, and communication -- all in the service of 

conservation. The Four Cs are the basis for this Administration's new environmentalism, one that looks to 

those closest to the land -- rather than Washington, D.C. for answers to public land issues." Public 

involvement, consultation, and coordination have been at the heart of the planning process leading to this 

Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) 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. 

BLM PFO 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 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. 

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

 

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 BLM’s lands, and begin exploring alternative ways to manage BLM’s 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 also considered in the range of alternatives and 

analyzed in the EIS, as required by NEPA. 

When the Preliminary Draft Alternatives had been developed, BLM distributed the 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.
Summary 

s-xii 

Affected Environment 

Special Area Designations 

Within the 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 eligible for Wild (2,970 acres) or Scenic (3,060 acres) 

designation. 

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, there is no 

need for BLM’s lands to support continued urban expansion. Adequate land for community growth exists 

in both Arizona State Trust and private ownership 

Soil Resources 

Soils in the planning areas tend to be shallow and of various textures. Surface disturbances are slow to 

recover in the desert environments, leaving exposed soil 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 contribution to air 

quality problems from BLM’s lands are tailpipe emissions of motorized vehicles, which contributes to 

ozone and CO pollution; and dust, which contributes to PM10 problems. Though any surface disturbance 

can increase production of dust from BLM 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 BLM 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. 

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, and 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
Summary 

s-xiii 

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 93,600 acres of desert 

tortoise habitat classified as Category I, 429,400 acres classified as Category II and 136,980 acres 

classified as Category III. 

Cultural 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 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. 

Paleontological Resources 

The planning areas contain no known fossil locations. 

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 

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 creates conflict with natural resources and traditional public land users.
Summary 

s-xiv 

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 

natural appearing landscapes on BLM’s managed lands and equates poorly designed activities that create 

large visual intrusions with BLM’s mismanagement. 

Rangeland Management 

Throughout the planning areas, there are 101 grazing allotments 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, except mineral material sales, has been almost nonexistent 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 small miners conducting mainly 

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. Demand for mineral 

materials has grown, especially for decorative rock that is found more often on BLM’s lands. 

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 

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

property and public safety. Prior to this Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, a statewide plan amendment and environmental assessment (Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan 

Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management) was conducted to address fire management 

issues. 

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 lands. Previous management plans have prescribed complete removal of these animals. A 
Summary 

s-xv 

manageability analysis of the herd determined the small number and frequent use of non-BLM land 

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

Transportation and Public Access 

Route inventory has been undertaken in both planning areas. Inventory is complete in the national 

monument and 140 miles of motorized route have been detected. In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, inventory is still underway with completion expected in early 2006. 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 land to determine areas containing wilderness characteristics were conducted by 

BLM in 1981 and 2002. The Arizona Wilderness Act of 1992 set aside 96,820 acres within the 

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

1981 for areas not added to the Wilderness Preservation System were reexamined to determine their 

current relevance. In addition, BLM received inventory 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 with a cultural 

orientation to public lands and a dependency on public lands for economic stimulus, to urban 

communities with more industrial based economics. In the urban areas, public lands are more a source of 

recreation than a cultural orientation such as ranching or mining engenders. Many rural communities 

within the planning area cling desperately 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. 

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. 

Environmental Consequences 

Impacts on Special Area Designations 

Proposed management will generally have little impact to existing Special Area Designations. Limiting 

motorized use to designated routes and allocations focused on managing rapidly increasing recreation 

demand will generally benefit resources within Special Area Designations. 
Summary 

s-xvi 

Impacts on Lands and Realty 

Sufficient utility and transportation corridors are proposed in all Alternatives to meet increasing energy 

demands for urban expansion in Central Arizona. Though several Alternatives for land disposal acres are 

analyzed, ample lands for development are available from sources other than disposal of BLM’s land. 

Impacts on Soil Resources 

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

enhance soil productivity. 

Impacts on Air Quality 

Management practices generally improve air quality throughout the planning areas. Though BLM’s 

contribution to air pollution in the region is negligible, proposals to limit motorized vehicles to designated 

routes and allocations or special area designations that limit expansion of route networks will result in 

production of target pollutants at or reduced from current levels. 

Impacts on 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 on nonBLM’s lands. Though BLM’s management actions can have only limited affects, 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. 

Impacts on 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. 

Impacts on Cultural Resources 

Management of both planning areas places a priority on preservation of cultural resources. Several 

alternatives are explored to allocate various sites or areas to public use for interpretation and 

development. In all alternatives, management actions provide sufficient protection for cultural resources 

and varying levels of impacts to sites developed for public use.
Summary 

s-xvii 

Impacts on Paleontological Resources 

Management actions are designed in all alternatives to protect fossil sites if they are discovered in the 

course of normal management activities. 

Impacts on Recreation 

Conflicts between recreation uses and other public land resources, sometimes even between different 

types of recreation uses, constitutes the most pressing issue on public lands in central Arizona. Each 

alternative attempts to address recreation management in ways that allow a variety of recreation activities 

throughout the planning areas. However, each alternative places a different emphasis on the type of 

recreation activities, motorized versus primitive non-motorized, that are managed for. Continuing to 

manage as we are now (Alternative A) would lead to continuing degradation of natural resources. 

Alternative B would increase management emphasis on well designed motorized recreation areas, while 

retaining non-motorized opportunities in some areas. Alternative D creates large areas managed primarily 

for primitive recreation uses, while retaining some areas available for more intensive motorized use. 

Alternatives C and E explore various mixes that attempt to meet the long term variety of recreation 

demand while reducing conflict with other natural resources and traditional public land users. 

Impacts on Visual Resources 

All alternatives explore allocations that minimize visual impacts while meeting demand for public land 

resources. 

Impacts on Rangeland Management 

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. At the RMP level, some reduction in AUMs might be required to achieve riparian 

management goals in some alternatives. Alternative D explores complete cessation of grazing in the area, 

which would potentially put as many as 100 livestock operators out of business. 

Impacts on Mineral and Energy Resources 

Development of mineral and energy resources within the planning area has been minimal. The 

alternatives explore progressively larger closures to mineral development. Impacts are generally 

expressed as a progressive reduction in the potential for development should mineral prices increase and 

mineable minerals be discovered. Sales of mineral materials as sand and gravel, boulders, and decorative 

rock, could be severely limited by management for desert tortoise and varying allocations for primitive 

recreation use, but it is expected that regional demand could be met from non-BLM lands. 
Summary 

s-xviii 

Impacts on Fire and Fuel Resources 

Though the alternatives explore varying allocations for large undeveloped areas, few impacts to 

management of fire suppression or fire use are anticipated. 

Impacts on 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. 

Impacts on Transportation and Public Access 

The alternatives explore progressively increasing restrictions to motorized recreation and access which 

would result in a progressively reduced motorized route network and reduced motorized access. Within 

the national monument, each alternative explored specific route networks that reduce miles of motorized 

routes from the current 140 miles to as few as 47 miles (a 66.4 % reduction). Within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, route modeling developed to simulate route decisions by alternative estimated 

variability of routes by alternative ranging from the currently available 2,240 miles of motorized route to 

as few as 1,644 miles of available route (a reduction of 29.5%). 

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics 

Current management is expected to allow progressive degradation of areas with wilderness characteristics 

not already protected by Congressional Wilderness designation. Designated Wilderness will continue to 

be protected. The alternatives explore shifting emphasis from current management to large areas 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. All alternatives explore differing mixes of 

allocations devoted to both motorized and non-motorized recreation, with Alternative B emphasizing 

motorized use and Alternative D emphasizing allocations to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. 

Impacts on Social and Economic Conditions 

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

Impacts could be severe on a local basis and the potential for loss of nearly 100 ranch businesses from 

grazing cessation in Alternative D could be catastrophic to individual families. 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.
Summary 

s-xix 

Environmental Justice 

Implementation of any alternative would not result in a disproportionate impact to any minority or low 

income group. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts of each alternative 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 – Volume 1 

Agua Fria National Monument 6

TABLES 14

MAPS 15

Chapter One - Introduction 19

1.1 Introduction 19

1.2 Purpose and Need 19

1.3 Planning Area and Map Setting 20

1.4 Process 21

1.4.1 Collaboration and Cooperation 21

1.4.2 Community Collaboration and Community Vision 21

1.4.3 Community Vision Statements 22

1.4.3.1 Black Canyon City 22

1.4.3.2 Castle Hot Springs 23

1.4.3.3 Dewey Humboldt - Friends of the Agua Fria River Basin 23

1.4.3.4 New River 24

1.4.3.5 Wickenburg 24

1.4.4 Collaborating Agencies and Other Stakeholder Groups 25

1.4.5 Tribal Coordination and Consultation 25

1.4.6 Cooperating Agencies 26

1.5 Mission and Goals 26

1.5.1.1 Purpose 27

1.5.1.2 Significance 27

1.5.1.3 Mission 28

1.5.1.4 Goals 28

1.5.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 28

1.5.2.1 Goals 29

1.6 Planning Issues 29

1.6.1 Introduction to the Scoping Process 29

1.6.2 Issues and Management Concerns 30

1.7 Laws, Regulations, Policies, Planning Criteria, and Existing Land Use Plans 30

1.8 Relationship to Other Plans 31

Chapter 2 - Alternatives 34

2.1 Introduction 34

2.2 Alternative A (Current Management) 37

2.2.1 Agua Fria National Monument 37

2.2.1.1 Special Area Designations 38
Table of Contents 

2

2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty 38

2.2.1.3 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 39

2.2.1.4 Biological Resources 40

2.2.1.5 Cultural Resources 40

2.2.1.6 Paleontological Resources 41

2.2.1.7 Recreation Resources 41

2.2.1.8 Visual Resources 41

2.2.1.9 Rangeland Management 41

2.2.1.10 Mineral Resource Management 42

2.2.1.11 Fire Management 42

2.2.1.12 Resource Conservation Areas and Multiple Resource Management Areas 42

2.2.1.13 Transportation and Public Access 42

2.2.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 43

2.2.2.1 Special Area Designations 43

2.2.2.2 Lands and Realty 43

2.2.2.3 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 45

2.2.2.4 Biological Resources 45

2.2.2.5 Cultural Resources 46

2.2.2.6 Recreation Resources 46

2.2.2.7 Visual Resources 46

2.2.2.8 Rangeland Management 47

2.2.2.9 Mineral Resource Management 48

2.2.2.10 Fire Management 49

2.2.2.11 Wild Horses and Burros 49

2.2.2.12 Resource Conservation Areas and Multiple Resource Management Areas 50

2.2.2.13 Transportation and Public Access 50

2.3 Alternative B 51

2.3.1 Agua Fria National Monument 51

2.3.1.1 Special Area Designations 51

2.3.1.2 Lands and Realty 52

2.3.1.3 Biological Resources 52

2.3.1.4 Cultural Resources 52

2.3.1.5 Recreation Resources 52

2.3.1.6 Visual Resources 57

2.3.1.7 Rangeland Management 57

2.3.1.8 Transportation and Public Access 57

2.3.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 60

2.3.2.1 Management Applicable to the Entire Bradshaw-Harquahala under this Alt 60

2.3.2.1.1 Lands and Realty 60

2.3.2.1.2 Rangeland Management 60

2.3.2.1.3 Mineral Resource Management 61

2.3.2.1.4 Transportation and Public Access 61

2.3.2.2 Management Units 62

2.3.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs Management Unit 65

2.3.2.2.3 Hassayampa Management Unit 69

2.3.2.2.4 Harquahala Management Unit 75
Table of Contents 

3

2.3.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management Unit 79

2.4 Alternative C 82

2.4.1 Agua Fria National Monument 83

2.4.1.1 Special Area Designations 83

2.4.1.2 Lands and Realty 85

2.4.1.2.1 Utility and Transportation Corridors 85

2.4.1.3 Biological Resources 85

2.4.1.4 Cultural Resources 85

2.4.1.5 Recreation Resources 86

2.4.1.6 Visual Resources 89

2.4.1.7 Rangeland Management 90

2.4.1.8 Transportation and Public Access 90

2.4.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 92

2.4.2.1 Management Applicable to the Entire Bradshaw-Harquahala under this Alt 93

2.4.2.1.1 Lands and Realty 93

2.4.2.1.2 Rangeland Management 93

2.4.2.1.3 Mineral Resource Management 94

2.4.2.1.4 Transportation and Public Access 94

2.4.2.2 Management Units 95

2.4.2.2.1 Black Canyon Management Unit 95

2.4.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs Management Unit 100

2.4.2.2.3 Hassayampa Management Unit 104

2.4.2.2.4 Harquahala Management Unit 112

2.4.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management Unit 118

2.4.2.2.6 Upper Agua Fria River Basin Management Unit 119

2.4.2.2.7 Resource Allocations Not Within a Management Unit 121

2.5 Alternative D 122

2.5.1 Agua Fria National Monument 122

2.5.1.1 Special Area Designations 122

2.5.1.2 Lands and Realty 123

2.5.1.3 Biological Resources 123

2.5.1.4 Cultural Resources 123

2.5.1.5 Recreation Resources 124

2.5.1.6 Visual Resources 126

2.5.1.7 Rangeland Management 126

2.5.1.8 Transportation and Public Access 127

2.5.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 128

2.5.2.1 Management Applicable to Entire Bradshaw-Harquahala under this Alt 129

2.5.2.1.1 Lands and Realty 129

2.5.2.1.2 Rangeland Management 129

2.5.2.1.3 Mineral Resources Management 129

2.5.2.1.4 Transportation and Public Access 130

2.5.2.2 Management Units 131

2.5.2.2.1 Black Canyon Management Unit 131

2.5.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs Management Unit 136
Table of Contents 

4

2.5.2.2.3 Hassayampa Management Unit 142

2.5.2.2.4 Harquahala Management Unit 145

2.5.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management Unit 151

2.5.2.2.6 Peeples Valley Management Unit 152

2.5.2.2.7 Upper Agua Fria River Basin Management Unit 154

2.6 Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 157

2.6.1 Agua Fria National Monument 157

2.6.1.1 Special Area Designations 157

2.6.1.2 Lands and Realty 158

2.6.1.3 Biological Resources 158

2.6.1.4 Cultural Resources 159

2.6.1.5 Recreation Resources 159

2.6.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics 164

2.6.1.7 Visual Resources 165

2.6.1.8 Rangeland Management 165

2.6.1.9 Transportation and Public Access 166

2.6.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 168

2.6.2.1 Management Applicable to Entire Bradshaw-Harquahala under this Alt 168

2.6.2.1.1 Lands and Realty 168

2.6.2.1.2 Rangeland Management 169

2.6.2.1.3 Mineral Resources Management 169

2.6.2.1.4 Transportation and Public Access 170

2.6.2.2 Management Units 170

2.6.2.2.1 Black Canyon Management Unit 170

2.6.2.2.2 Castle Hot Springs Management Unit 178

2.6.2.2.3 Hassayampa Management Unit 187

2.6.2.2.4 Harquahala Management Unit 197

2.6.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management Unit 204

2.6.2.2.6 Upper Agua Fria River Basin Management Unit 204

2.7 Management Common to All Action Alternatives 209

2.7.1 Management Common to Both Planning Areas 209

2.7.1.1 Land Health Standards 209

2.7.1.2 Lands and Realty 211

2.7.1.3 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 213

2.7.1.4 Biological Resources 214

2.7.1.5 Cultural Resources 221

2.7.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics 223

2.7.1.7 Paleontological Resources 225

2.7.1.8 Visual Resources 226

2.7.1.9 Rangeland Management 226

2.7.1.10 Fire Management 228

2.7.2 Management Common to Agua Fria National Monument 232

2.7.2.1 Management Units 232

2.7.2.2 Special Area Designations 233

2.7.2.3 Lands and Realty 233
Table of Contents 

5

2.7.2.4 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 233

2.7.2.5 Biological Resources 234

2.7.2.6 Cultural Resources 234

2.7.2.7 Recreation Resources 236

2.7.2.8 Visual Resources 240

2.7.2.9 Mineral Resource Management 241

2.7.2.10 Transportation and Public Access 241

2.7.3 Management Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 243

2.7.3.1 Management Units 243

2.7.3.2 Special Area Designations 246

2.7.3.3 Lands and Realty 247

2.7.3.4 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 248

2.7.3.5 Biological Resources 248

2.7.3.6 Cultural Resources 248

2.7.3.7 Recreation Resources 252

2.7.3.8 Transportation and Public Access 260

2.7.3.9 Visual Resource Management 263

2.7.3.10 Rangeland Management 264

2.7.3.11 Mineral Resource Management 264

2.7.3.12 Wild Burro Management 264

2.8 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail 265

2.9 Typical Management Actions and Standard Operating Procedures 266

2.9.1 Typical Management Actions 266

2.9.1.1 Vegetation Treatment 266

2.9.2 Appropriate Management Response 271

2.9.2.1 Fire Management 271

2.9.3 Standard Operating Procedures 272

2.10 Implementation and Monitoring 282

2.10.1 Implementation 282

2.10.2 Monitoring 283

2.11 Administrative Actions 283

2.12 Requirements for Further Environmental Analysis 283

2.13 Interrelationships 284

2.14 Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 285

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment 388

3.1 Introduction 388

3.2 Special Area Designations 388

3.2.1 Introduction 388

3.2.2 Wilderness Areas 388

3.2.3 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 388

3.2.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers 389
Table of Contents 

6

3.3 Lands and Realty 389

3.3.1 Land Tenure 389

3.3.3 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 390

3.3.4 Utility and Communications Corridors 391

3.3.5 Transportation Corridors 392

3.4 Soil, Air, and Water Resources 392

3.4.1 Soil Resources 392

3.4.2 Air Resources 393

3.4.2.1 PM 10 394

3.4.2.2 Ozone 395

3.4.3 Water Resources 395

3.5 Biological Resources 396

3.5.1 Vegetation 396

3.5.2 Riparian Resources 397

3.5.3 Terrestrial Games Species 397

3.5.4 Aquatic Game Species 398

3.5.5 Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species 398

3.5.5.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 398

3.5.5.2 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) 398

3.5.5.3 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) 399

3.5.5.4 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) 399

3.5.5.5 Desert Pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) 399

3.5.5.6 Gila Chub (Gila intermedia) 400

3.5.5.7 Gila Topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) 400

3.5.5.8 Spikedace (Meda fulgida) 400

3.5.6 Other Special Status Species 401

3.5.6.1 Sonoran Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) 401

3.5.7 Invasive Species 402

3.6 Cultural Resources 402

3.7 Paleontological Resources 406

3.8 Recreation 406

3.9 Wilderness Characteristics 408

3.10 Visual Resources 409

3.11 Rangeland Management 410

3.12 Mineral Resources 411

3.13 Fire Management 413

3.14 Wild Burros 414 

3.15 Social and Economic Conditions 414 

3.15.1 Population and Household Characteristics 415

3.15.2 Employment and Earnings 416
Table of Contents 

7

3.15.3 Unemployment 417

3.15.5 Recreation and Tourism 418

3.15.6 Ranching-Agriculture 419

3.16 Environmental Justice 420

3.16.1 Minority Populations within the Planning Areas 420

3.16.2 Low-Income Populations within the Planning Areas 421

3.17 Health and Safety 422

3.17.1 Abandoned Mine Lands 422

3.17.2 Hazardous Materials 422

3.18 Transportation and Public Access 423 

Table of Contents Volume 2 

Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences 426

4.1 Introduction 426

4.2 Analytical Assumptions 426

4.3 Types of Effects to be Addressed 427

4.4 Incomplete or Unavailable Information 427

4.5 Critical Elements that will not be Addressed 427

4.6 Impacts on Special Area Designations 428

4.6.1 From Special Area Designations 428

4.6.2 From Lands and Realty Management 430

4.6.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 430

4.6.4 From Biological Resource Management 431

4.6.5 From Cultural Resource Management 432

4.6.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 433

4.6.7 From Recreation Management 433

4.6.8 From Visual Resource Management 434

4.6.9 From Rangeland Management 435

4.6.10 From Minerals Management 436

4.6.11 From Fire Management 437

4.6.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 438

4.6.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 438

4.6.14 from Management of Wilderness Characteristics 439

4.7 Impacts on Lands and Realty Management 439

4.7.1 From Special Area Designations 440

4.7.2 From Lands and Realty Management 442

4.7.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 443

4.7.4 From Biological Resource Management 444
Table of Contents 

8

4.7.5 From Cultural Resource Management 444

4.7.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 444

4.7.7 From Recreation Management 444

4.7.8 From Visual Resource Management 444

4.7.9 From Rangeland Management 444

4.7.10 From Minerals Management 445

4.7.11 From Fire Management 445

4.7.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 445

4.7.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 445

4.7.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 445

4.8 Impacts on Soil Resources 445

4.8.1 From Special Area Designations 445

4.8.2 From Lands and Realty Management 446

4.8.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 447

4.8.4 From Biological Resource Management 447

4.8.5 From Cultural Resource Management 448

4.8.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 448

4.8.7 From Recreation Management 448

4.8.7.1 From Special Recreation Permit Program 450

4.8.8 From Visual Resource Management 452

4.8.9 From Rangeland Management 452

4.8.10 From Minerals Management 453

4.8.11 From Fire Management 454

4.8.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 455

4.8.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 455

4.8.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 457

4.9 Impacts on Air Quality 457

4.9.1 From Special Area Designations 460

4.9.2 From Lands and Realty Management 462

4.9.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 463

4.9.4 From Biological Resource Management 463

4.9.5 From Cultural Resource Management 464

4.9.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 465

4.9.7 From Recreation Management 465

4.9.8 From Visual Resource Management 468

4.9.9 From Rangeland Management 468

4.9.10 From Minerals Management 468

4.9.11 From Fire Management 469

4.9.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 470

4.9.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 470

4.9.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 471

4.10 Impacts on Water Resources 471

4.10.1 From Special Area Designations 472

4.10.2 From Lands and Realty Management 474

4.10.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 475
Table of Contents 

9

4.10.4 From Biological Resource Management 476

4.10.5 From Cultural Resource Management 476

4.10.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 476

4.10.7 From Recreation Management 476

4.10.8 From Visual Resource Management 478

4.10.9 From Rangeland Management 478

4.10.10 From Minerals Management 479

4.10.11 From Fire Management 481

4.10.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 481

4.10.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 481

4.10.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 482

4.11 Impacts on Biological Resources 483

4.11.1 From Special Area Designations 483

4.11.2 From Lands and Realty Management 487

4.11.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 489

4.11.4 From Biological Resource Management 489

4.11.5 From Cultural Resource Management 493

4.11.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 494

4.11.7 From Recreation Management 494

4.11.8 From Visual Resource Management 495

4.11.9 From Rangeland Management 496

4.11.10 From Minerals Management 498

4.11.11 From Fire Management 499

4.11.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 500

4.11.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 501

4.11.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 502

4.12 Impacts on Cultural Resources 502

4.12.1 From Special Area Designations 503

4.12.2 From Lands and Realty Management 504

4.12.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 506

4.12.4 From Biological Resource Management 506

4.12.5 From Cultural Resource Management 506

4.12.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 512

4.12.7 From Recreation Management 512

4.12.8 From Visual Resource Management 514

4.12.9 From Rangeland Management 515

4.12.10 From Minerals Management 516

4.12.11 From Fire Management 517

4.12.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 518

4.12.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 518

4.12.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 519

4.13 Impacts on Paleontological Resources 520

4.13.1 From Special Area Designations 520

4.13.2 From Lands and Realty Management 520

4.13.4 From Biological Resource Management 521
Table of Contents 

10

4.13.5 From Cultural Resource Management 521

4.13.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 521

4.13.7 From Recreation Management 521

4.13.8 From Visual Resource Management 522

4.13.9 From Rangeland Management 522

4.13.10 From Minerals Management 523

4.13.11 From Fire Management 523

4.13.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 523

4.13.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 523

4.13.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 524

4.14 Impacts on Recreation 524

4.14.1 From Special Area Designations 524

4.14.2 From Lands and Realty Management 526

4.14.3 From Management of Soil, Water, and Air Resources 528

4.14.4 From Biological Resource Management 528

4.14.5 From Cultural Resource Management 530

4.14.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 533

4.14.7 From Recreation Management 533

4.14.8 From Visual Resource Management 541

4.14.9 From Rangeland Management 542

4.14.10 From Minerals Management 543

4.14.11 From Fire Management 544

4.14.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 544

4.14.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 545

4.14.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 549

4.15 Impacts on Visual Resource Management 550

4.15.1 From Special Area Designations 552

4.15.2 From Lands and Realty Management 554

4.15.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 556

4.15.4 From Biological Resource Management 556

4.15.5 From Cultural Resource Management 557

4.15.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 558

4.15.7 From Recreation Management 558

4.15.8 From Visual Resource Management 560

4.15.9 From Rangeland Management 562

4.15.10 From Minerals Management 562

4.15.11 From Fire Management 564

4.15.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 564

4.15.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 564

4.15.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 565

4.16 Impacts on Rangeland Management 565

4.16.1 From Special Area Designations 565

4.16.2 From Lands and Realty Management 567

4.16.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 568

4.16.4 From Biological Resource Management 568
Table of Contents 

11

4.16.5 From Cultural Resource Management 569

4.16.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 570

4.16.7 From Recreation Management 570

4.16.8 From Visual Resource Management 571

4.16.9 From Rangeland Management 572

4.16.10 From Minerals Management 573

4.16.11 From Fire Management 573

4.16.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 573

4.17 Impacts on Minerals and Energy Resources 574

4.17.1 From Special Area Designations 577

4.17.2 From Lands and Realty Management 579

4.17.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 580

4.17.4 From Biological Resource Management 580

4.17.5 From Cultural Resource Management 581

4.17.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 581

4.17.7 From Recreation Management 581

4.17.8 From Visual Resource Management 581

4.17.9 From Rangeland Management 581

4.17.10 From Minerals Management 582

4.17.11 From Fire Management 582

4.17.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 582

4.17.13 From Land Health Standards 582

4.17.14 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 582

4.17.15 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 582

4.18 Impacts on Fire and Fuel Resources 583

4.18.1 From Special Area Designations 583

4.18.2 From Lands and Realty Management 584

4.18.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 585

4.18.4 From Biological Resource Management 585

4.18.5 From Cultural Resource Management 586

4.18.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 587

4.18.7 From Recreation Management 587

4.18.8 From Visual Resource Management 588

4.18.9 From Rangeland Management 588

4.18.10 From Minerals Management 589

4.18.11 From Fire Management 589

4.18.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 590

4.18.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 590

4.18.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 591

4.19 Impacts on Wild Horses and Burros 591

4.19.1 From Special Area Designations 591

4.19.2 From Lands and Realty Management 592

4.19.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 592

4.19.4 From Biological Resource Management 592

4.19.5 From Cultural Resource Management 592
Table of Contents 

12

4.19.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 593

4.19.7 From Recreation Management 593

4.19.8 From Visual Resource Management 593

4.19.9 From Rangeland Management 593

4.19.10 From Minerals Management 594

4.19.11 From Fire Management 594

4.19.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 594

4.19.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 594

4.19.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 595

4.20 Impacts on Transportation and Public Access 595

4.20.2 From Lands and Realty Management 598

4.20.4 From Biological Resource Management 599

4.20.5 From Cultural Resource Management 600

4.20.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 600

4.20.7 From Recreation Resource Management 600

4.20.8 From Visual Resource Management 603

4.20.9 From Rangeland Management 603

4.20.10 From Minerals Management 604

4.20.11 From Fire Management 604

4.20.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 604

4.20.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 605

4.20.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 605

4.21 Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics 607

4.21.1 From Special Area Designations 607

4.21.2 From Lands and Realty Management 608

4.21.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 609

4.21.4 From Biological Resource Management 609

4.21.5 From Cultural Resource Management 609

4.21.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 609

4.21.7 From Recreation Resource Management 609

4.21.8 From Visual Resource Management 610

4.21.9 From Rangeland Management 611

4.21.10 From Minerals Management 611

4.21.11 From Fire Management 612

4.21.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 612

4.21.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 612

4.21.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 613

4.22 Impacts on Social and Economic Conditions 615

4.22.1 Planning Area Growth and Development 615

4.23 Environmental Justice 627

4.24 Cumulative Impacts 627 

List of Preparers 636
Table of Contents 

13

List of Draft Recipients 640

Abbreviations and Acronyms 643

References 647

Glossary 651

Additional Tables 688

Appendix A 696

Appendix B- Scoping Results 699

Appendix C – Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policies and Planning Criteria 707

Appendix D - Route Evaluation/Designation Decision Tree Process 718

APPENDIX E: CULTURAL RESOURCES USE CATEGORIES 722

Appendix F: Special Cultural Resource Management Areas 725

Appendix G – Harquahala Herd Area Manageability Analysis 727

Appendix I: Consideration of Wilderness Characteristics 732

Appendix J - Vegetation Communities Related to Fire 741

Appendix K – Special Stipulations for Special Recreation Permits 749

Appendix L – Fire Management Units 753

Appendix M – Population Growth Model 776

Appendix N – Bradshaw-Harquahala Route Model 778

Appendix O - Grazing Allotment Information 781

Appendix P - Conservation Measures for Fire, Fuel, and Air Quality 785

Appendix Q-1. Riparian Functional Condition – Agua Fria National Monument 797

Appendix Q-2. Riparian Functional Condition – Bradshaw-Harquahala 798

Index 799 
Tables 

14

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 Area 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 BLM 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)

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
Maps 

15

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 Special Area Designations and National Register District (Alt A Special Area 

Des-NRD) 

Map 2-3 Alt A AFNM Utility-Transportation Corridors (Alt A Utility-Trans Corridor) 

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 Area Designations (Alt B Special Area Des) 

Map 2-13 Alt B AFNM Utility-Transportation Corridors (Alt B AFNM Utility-Trans Corridor) 

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 Characteri) 

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 

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 
Maps 

16

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 Char) 

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 Char) 

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) 

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 
Maps 

17

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 

Map 3-11 ROS 

Map 3-12 Wilderness Characteristics (Wilderness Char) 

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 Peeple Valley 

 Chapter One 
 
 Chapter 1 

19

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 Field Office 

(PFO). These plans represent the culmination 

of many months of planning on the part of 

BLM's PFO 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 newly 

designated Agua Fria National Monument as 

well as other BLM's 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 people 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 assure that actions comply with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
 Chapter 1 

20

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 Field Office'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 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). 

The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

encompassing 895,910 acres, is located within 

Maricopa, Yavapai, and La Paz Counties (Map
 Chapter 1 

21

1-1). 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 BLM's 

land. The size of the City of Phoenix has 

increased by more than 19,000 acres, including 

nearly 700 acres of BLM's land. These are only 

two of the growing cities and towns expanding 

their borders toward and into the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. The increased 

pressure on public lands for recreation, rights-ofway, 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 Field 

Office'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. 
 Chapter 1 

22

Once established, communication networks 

served as an integral link between BLM, 

citizens, and communities by fostering interest 

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 let citizens do the following: 

• refine issues, 

• discuss visions for BLM's lands, and 

• begin exploring alternative ways to 

manage BLM's 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 the 

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 the developing of the overall vision for 

these plans. The 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's lands and the 

people who live, who work, and who 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. 

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 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 
 Chapter 1 

23

five miles from the private property 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 

24

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 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 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 BLM 

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 

25

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 

26

• 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. 

Tribal consultation is ongoing and will continue 

throughout the planning process. 

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 this Draft Plan and EIS. The 

purpose statement clarifies why the monument 

was set aside as a unit for special management. 

The significance statement addresses what 

makes the area unique. Lastly, the mission and 

the goal statements reflect ideal conditions 

which managers should strive to attain. The 
 Chapter 1 

27

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 qualities, defined as 

objects in the monument’s proclamation 

(Appendix A), include the following outstanding 

characteristics: 

• 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, including 

pronghorn and other sensitive species such 

as the lowland leopard frog, the Mexican 

garter snake, the desert tortoise, and four 

species of native fish. 

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 

that provide habitat for sensitive wildlife species 

including desert tortoise, lowland leopard frog, 

Mexican garter snake, common black hawk, 

Gila chub, longfin dace, speckled dace, and Gila 

Mountain 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. 
 Chapter 1 

28

Several remote canyons are oases that feature 

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. 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 
 Chapter 1 

29

relationship with the surrounding landscape. 

This sense of community also extends to the 

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 related to 

resource management in the planning area, 

and provide opportunities for public 

education, volunteerism, visitation, and 

enjoyment of resources in a manner 

consistent with resource protection. 

• Form partnerships in cooperative 

managing adjacent and intermingled lands. 

• Provide for cooperative management of 

contiguous public lands for recreation, as 

well as maintaining and restoring wildlife 

habitats. 

• Support public understanding, enjoyment, 

and appreciation of these 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 opportunities and encourage 

thoughtful use, social responsibility, and 

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 
 Chapter 1 

30

this chapter. Planning bulletins, including 

sections specific to soliciting public input, were 

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 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 

31

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). 

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 these 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. 

• Yavapai County General Plan, Adopted 

April 7, 2003. 

• City of Peoria General Plan, December 

2002. 
 Chapter 1 

32

• 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 

34 

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 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

(RMP/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 

management with that suggested in 

each Alternative. 
Chapter 2 

35 

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 Preferred 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 Area Designations Used in this 

Document 

Several designations within the national 

monument and specific MUs distinguish the 

land use under various Alternatives. 

Special Area Designations - The following are 

special area designations for protecting one or 

more sensitive resources: 

• Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC), 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 

at least regional significance 

and are mainly managed to 

preserve these values. 

• An ACEC could contain 

combinations of the 
Chapter 2 

36 

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 

requirements may be designated by 

Congress to protect their scenic beauty 

and quality of habitat. 

• Back Country Byways - Routes 

designated 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 area designations 

described above, several 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 managemen

t 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 or Enhance 

Wilderness Characteristics - Areas that 

contain resource values of naturalness, 

outstanding opportunities for solitude 

and primitive, unconfined recreation 

where maintaining these values 

represents a major management focus. 

• Visual Resource Management Classes

(VRM) - These allocations are 
Chapter 2 

37 

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 within the MUs 

that are not afforded special management by the 

designations and allocations described above 

will be administered according to the 

management actions in the Management 

Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area and in the Management Units sections of 

this chapter. 

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 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 a 

compilation of management decisions from 

previously approved management 

documents, analysis of those decisions in the 

context of the 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 relevant plans and may be 

implemented. 

• Decisions that do not conform 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: 
Chapter 2 

38 

• 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 Area 

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 area 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. 

Prohibit livestock grazing. 

Prohibit Land Use Authorizations. 

Withdraw 80 acres from Mineral Entry. 

Prohibit surface occupancy for oil and gas 

development. 

Perry Mesa ACEC (9,580 acres) 

Would limit motorized vehicles to designated 

roads and trails. 

Acquire 8,484 acres of State and private lands. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Agua Fria River segments, which have been 

determined to be suitable for WSR status and 

described in the Arizona Statewide Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Legislative EIS, would be 

managed in a way that does not degrade the 

values defining their suitability. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

39 

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, removed, 

or maintained in accordance with BLM's 

agreements with utility providers for as long as 

the demand exists for the utility. New rights-ofway might be permitted within existing rightsof-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. 

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 might consider applications for new 

facilities if they determine that such facilities 

will protect or enhance monument resources. 

Land Use Authorizations 

Any land use authorizations, if applicable, 

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 activities will 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. 
Chapter 2 

40 

2.2.1.4 Biological Resources 

The following decisions relative to management 

of biological resources were extracted from 

current planning documents: 

• Designate Larry Canyon ACEC (Map 2-

2). 

• 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. 

• 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. 
Chapter 2 

41 

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 

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, 

including 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 
Chapter 2 

42 

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 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Consistent with Proclamation 7263 (Appendix 

A) and the Purpose and Significance of Agua 

Fria National Monument, no areas in the 

monument would be authorized for crosscountry, off-road vehicular use, except for 

authorized administrative and emergency 

purposes. Motorized and mechanical vehicular 

uses would occur only on existing routes (Map 

2-1). 

Larry Canyon ACEC (80 acres) would be closed 

to motorized vehicles. 
Chapter 2 

43 

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) 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 

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 Area 

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) 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. 
Chapter 2 

44 

• 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 

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. 

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. 

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) (eight of which are within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area) would be 

retained, as shown in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1. Use Corridors within Lower Gila North 

Planning Area 

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 should 

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 

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. Wickenburg-Yarnell One 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 

45 

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: 

• 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. 
Chapter 2 

46 

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. 

Starting in FY 1983, the significant botanical 

areas in Arrastre Creek (650 acres), 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. 

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. 

2.2.2.5 Cultural Resources 

Reduce or eliminate indirect impacts from land 

uses on cultural resources as identified through 

study plots. 

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. The signing would begin at the StantonOctave turnoff from Highway 89, east to Stanton 

and then north to Yarnell (T10N, R5W, Sec. 

30). Signing would include the identification of 

creeks, geologic features, and botanic values. 

Directional signing would be incorporated into 

the recommended interpretive corridor. 

2.2.2.7 Visual Resources 

No VRM standards were applied in either the 

Phoenix RMP (BLM 1988a) or the Lower Gila 

North MFP. In the absence of management 

standards established through planning, VRM 

Class I standards would be applied to designated 

wilderness and VRM Class III standards would 

be applied throughout the remaining planning 

area. Acres of VRM Classes are shown in Table 

2-2 and are portrayed on Map 2-9. 
Chapter 2 

47 

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). 

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. 

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

Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

(Preferred)

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

II 0 486,800 502,610 340,880 488,250

III 870,180 284,720 260,020 220,790 278,540

IV 0 98,660 94,800 107,020 103,390
Chapter 2 

48 

2.2.2.9 Mineral Resource 

Management 

The mineral resources managed by the BLM's 

Phoenix Field Office (PFO) 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 PFO 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 PFO-managed lands that are not 

planned for within the Sonoran Desert National 

Monument RMP or Phoenix South RMP 

revisions, and 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. 

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 will be met by 

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

Allow development of sites for saleable minerals 

where they do not conflict with Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs) or proposed ACEC 

designations.

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. 
Chapter 2 

49 

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. Use surface protection measures as 

outlined in 43 CFR 3802 and 43 CFR 3809. 

Require a Mining Plan of Operation for 

all mining operations proposing to disturb 5 

acres or more. Require performance bonds from 

all owner/operators to prevent unnecessary and 

undue degradation. Review leaching operations 

for environmental and human safety by the State 

Mine Inspector before commencement or upon 

suspension of the operator's license in 

accordance with Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 

27-303. 

Federally administered minerals beneath lands 

addressed in this planning, 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. 

2.2.2.10 Fire Management 

Wildfire responses 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.
Chapter 2 

50 

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 Cordes Junction MRMA. 

A total of 3.5 miles of Tule Creek would be 

closed to motorized vehicles. However, in the 

Williams Mesa MRMA, motorized vehicles 

would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Motorized vehicles would be limited to existing 

roads and trails in the Hassayampa River RMA. 

2.2.2.13 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Land Use Allocation 

OHV Designations (Map 2-11) 

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 (BLM 1983) 

would be generally open to vehicular travel, 

except for areas specifically closed to such 

access. The five designated wilderness 

areas would remain closed to all forms of 

motorized vehicles and mechanized uses. 

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. 

Off-road vehicle use would be limited to 

existing roads, motorized vehicle trails, and 

washes in the Hassayampa River. The portion 

of the river within Hassayampa River Canyon 

Wilderness would remain closed to all forms of 

motorized vehicles and mechanized uses. 

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 
Chapter 2 

51 

standard trail markers, and hazard warnings 

would be installed where needed. 

BLM would work with the Desert Caballeros of 

Wickenburg 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 Area 

Designations 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

No more ACECs are proposed by Alternative B, 

and the existing Perry Mesa and Larry Canyon 

ACECs (Map 2-2) would be removed from 

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 will be more like 

roaded natural, should it be further developed 

for public use. 

Management Actions 

Maintenance would conform to BLM’s Level 2 

standards (BLM 9100 Manual) 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. 
Chapter 2 

52 

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. 

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. 

Table 2-3. Alternative B: Cultural Resource 

Public-Use Areas

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 

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 

53 

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 (e.g. jeep tours, 

outfitters), 

o Commercial special events, and 

o Concommercial 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 needs. 

Dispersed Camping: 

• Camping permits could be required if 

resource damage occurs that inhibits 

achieving resource DFCs, 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, seasonal limitations, or closures. 

• Camping would be prohibited within 1/4 

mile of a developed campground. 

• 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. 
Chapter 2 

54 

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. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use 

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in 

section 2.3.1.8. 

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 proclamation, or 

if health and safety issues emerge. If 

damage continues, more 

limitations might be required, 

including temporary or permanent area 
Chapter 2 

55 

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: 

• 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: 
Chapter 2 

56 

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 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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

57 

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 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Land Use Allocation 

The entire monument is allocated as Limited to 

Designated Routes (Map 2-16). 

Management Actions 

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 

Recreation Use: 
Chapter 2 

58 

• 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 

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 

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. 

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 

provide for greater access to recreation 

opportunities. 

• Bloody Basin and Badger Springs 

Roads would be maintained minimally 

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. 

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 

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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

59 

• 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. 

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. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 

• The Back Country RMZ would be 

managed as a non-motorized area. 

Within Passage 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

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 

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 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. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

• No new routes would be built within the 

Passage RMZ except to mitigate 

resource conflicts. 

• 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. 

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: 
Chapter 2 

60 

Routes Open 140 miles 

Routes Closed 38 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 includes both 

developed and primitive recreation by 

establishing SRMAs and lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance 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 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 Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter in the discussion 

under 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 the current planning 

effort. 

Lands that would be considered for potential 

acquisition would include State and private 

lands (willing seller) within the planning 

area. When acquired, these lands would be 

managed consistently with the resource 

management prescriptions outlined in this land 

use plan that apply to other nearby BLM's 

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 

New utility corridors within the BradshawHarquahala 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. 
Chapter 2 

61 

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. 

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 or enhance 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 
Chapter 2 

62 

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 

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. 

2.3.2.2.1.1 Special Area 

Designations 

Special area designations would not be made 

within the Black Canyon MU. 
Chapter 2 

63 

2.3.2.2.1.2 Lands and Realty 

Land Tenure Adjustments 

No lands have been identified as available for 

disposal. 

Communication Sites 

This MU has only 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 additional areas would be allocated for 

biological resources within this MU. 

2.3.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources 

Land Use Allocations 

Black Mesa/Bumble Bee SCRMA and Black 

Canyon SCRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

The Black Canyon MU has a variety of 

prehistoric and historic sites that could be used 

for interpretation, educational purposes, 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 

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 as long as they were 

conducted with protective stipulations in 

accordance with BLM's regulations and, where 

required, 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 
Chapter 2 

64 

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. 

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: 
Chapter 2 

65 

• 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 

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 Area 

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. 

Special Area 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 
Chapter 2 

66 

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 

There would be no other allocations for 

biological resources within this MU. 

2.3.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources 

Land Use Allocations 

Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria SCRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

A variety of prehistoric and historic sites would 

be selected for interpretation, education, and 

public visitation. For further information on 

public use of cultural resources, see Appendix E. 

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 as long as they were 

conducted with protective stipulations in 
Chapter 2 

67 

accordance with BLM's regulations and, where 

required, 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 

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 within the 

SRMA. 
Chapter 2 

68 

Allocations for Visual Resource Management 

designed to achieve Desired Future Conditions 

are discussed in section 2.3.2.2.2.7. 

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 the Castle Hot Springs Management 

Unit: 

• the Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA 

would be allocated to VRM Class III 

objectives, 

• the Hells Canyon Wilderness would 

be 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 or enhance 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

Prescriptions 

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. 

Allocations to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in section 

2.3.2.2.2.6. 

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. 

Close reclaiming and eroded routes, hillside 

climbs, and washes to motorized travel within 
Chapter 2 

69 

the 9,080 acres managed to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. 

Develop up to three non-motorized trails and 

trailheads within the 9,080 acres allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

(Map 2-31). 

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. 

2.3.2.2.3.1 Special Area 

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 Level 2 standard 

(BLM 9100 Manual) and be passable by highclearance 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. 
Chapter 2 

70 

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 other allocations for biological resources 

would be made within the Hassayampa MU. 

2.3.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resources 

Land Use Allocations 

Wickenburg/Vulture SCRMA and 

Weaver/Octave 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 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 

could be authorized with protective stipulations 

in accordance with BLM’s regulations and, 

where required, 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. 
Chapter 2 

71 

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. 

Limit the number of motorized competitive 

races to 2 per year. 

Install informational, educational, and 

interpretive kiosks and trail signs where needed. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

72 

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 the following 

purposes: 

• meeting the high demand for nonmotorized recreation, 

• vehicle parking, 

• unloading 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 

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 
Chapter 2 

73 

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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

74 

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 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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. 
Chapter 2 

75 

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 Level 2 

standard (BLM 9100 Manual), passable by highclearance vehicles. Easements and rights-of-way 

would be secured where needed to ensure longterm public access along Constellation Mine 

Road. 

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 Field 

Office 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 Area 

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. 

No new special area 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 

Land Use Allocation 

Harquahala Mountains WHA 
Chapter 2 

76 

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. 

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 

Provide 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 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 

could be authorized and conducted under 

protective stipulations that are in accordance 

with BLM regulations and, where required, 

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 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. 
Chapter 2 

77 

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. 

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, 87,070 acres as portrayed on Map 2-

31 would be allocated to maintain or enhance 

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. 
Chapter 2 

78 

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. 

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 or enhance 

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 or enhance 

wilderness characteristics would be closed to 

mineral material disposal. 

2.3.2.2.4.9 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

Prescriptions 

Allocations to maintain or enhance 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 87,070 acres (Map 2-

31) allocated to maintain or enhance 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. 
Chapter 2 

79 

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 PFO'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-BLM 

administered 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. 

2.3.2.2.5.1 Special Area 

Designations 

No new special area 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 

No other biological resource allocations would 

be proposed within this MU. 

2.3.2.2.5.4 Cultural Resources 

Land Use Allocation 

Harcuvar Mountains SCRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

A variety of prehistoric and historic sites would 

be developed for interpretation, education, and 

public visitation. For further information on 

public use of cultural resources, see Appendix E. 

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 

would be authorized and conducted under 

protective stipulations that are in accordance 

with BLM’s regulations and, where required, 

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 

80 

• 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 

A variety of prehistoric and historic sites would 

be selected for interpretation, education, and 

public visitation. For further information on 

public use of cultural resources, see Appendix E. 
Chapter 2 

81 

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 

would be authorized and conducted under 

protective stipulations that are in accordance 

with BLM's regulations and, where required, 

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 

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 
Chapter 2 

82 

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 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

83 

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 Area 

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 proposed native 

fish (Gila chub) and provides special features of 

value for studies of desert riparian systems. The 

area is proposed 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 proposed native fish 

(Gila chub) and provides special features of 

value for studies of desert riparian systems. The 

area is proposed 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 

Lands along Indian Creek would be acquired 

from willing non-Federal land holders. 

Motorized vehicle routes would be closed or 
Chapter 2 

84 

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 proposed native fish 

(Gila chub) and provides special features of 

value for studies of desert riparian systems. The 

area is proposed 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. 

Livestock grazing would be prohibited. 

Lousy Canyon ACEC (80 acres) 

Relevance 

Rare riparian deciduous forest 

Importance 

Habitat supports the federally listed Gila 

topminnow and desert pupfish and federally 

proposed Gila chub and provides special 

features of value for studies of desert riparian 

systems. The area is proposed 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. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Tributaries to the Agua Fria River would be 

studied to determine eligibility 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. 

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 Level 2 standard, (BLM 9100 Manual) 

passable by high-clearance vehicles. 
Chapter 2 

85 

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 WHAs 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. 

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 and have 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. 

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 of the monument would be allocated to 

SCRMAs focused on varying levels of public 

use as shown in Table 2-4 SCRMAs 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 
Chapter 2 

86 

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 28,420 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 70 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) commercialbased operations such as grazing permits. The 

rest of the monument would be allocated as a 

Front Country RMZ of 42,410 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 

42,410 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. 

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

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 

87 

• 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 

28,420 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. 

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: 
Chapter 2 

88 

• 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 

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 70 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. 
Chapter 2 

89 

• 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. 

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.
Chapter 2 

90 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Land Use Allocation 

The entire monument is allocated as limited to 

designated routes. 

Management Actions 

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 

Recreation Use: 

• 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 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. 
Chapter 2 

91 

• 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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

• Explore opportunities to link networks 

of non-motorized trails within the 

monument to trails outside the 

monument on other BLM 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. 

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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

92 

• 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 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 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. 

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. 

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, 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 129 miles 

Routes Closed 50 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 or 

enhance 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 or enhance 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. 
Chapter 2 

93 

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 

• five 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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

94 

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 closed to 

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: 

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 lands in the planning area would be 

open for mineral material disposal, except for 

the following, 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 or enhance 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Land Use Allocation 

All public lands within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be allocated 
Chapter 2 

95 

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 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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

Administrative Actions 

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 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. 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 Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area in the Management 

Units section of Chapter 2. 

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. 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. 

2.4.2.2.1 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, 
Chapter 2 

96 

• 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 Area 

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 Running Deer site and other prehistoric and 

historic sites with important scientific values and 

relationships to sites in the adjacent national 

monument. 

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. 

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 other biological resource allocations are 

located within this MU. 

2.4.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources 

Land Use Allocation 

Black Canyon Corridor SCRMA 
Chapter 2 

97 

Desired Future Condition 

A variety of prehistoric and historic sites for 

interpretation, educational use, and public 

visitation would be available. For further 

information on public use of cultural resources, 

see Appendix E. 

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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

98 

Develop some facilities; however, stress 

preserving the natural environment in recreation 

management. Develop only the facilities needed 

to meet resource management objectives. 

Management Actions

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, 

• 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 or 

enhance 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, tied to open 

space and natural landscapes. Desired recreation 

settings would be semi-primitive non-motorized 

with semi-primitive motorized 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. 
Chapter 2 

99 

Administrative Actions 

Undertake detailed inventory and analysis to 

develop standards to maintain proper levels of 

recreation disturbance within 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 or enhance 

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. 

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 or enhance 

wilderness characteristics would be closed to 

mineral material disposal. 

2.4.2.2.1.9 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 or enhance 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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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 or enhance 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. 
Chapter 2 

100 

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 Area 

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. 

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 

Biological resources, including desert tortoise 

habitat and potential desert bighorn sheep 

habitat; recreation opportunities; open space. 

Importance 

Highly scenic area with high-quality wildlife 

habitat undisturbed by vehicle routes and human 

activity. 
Chapter 2 

101 

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 reclaimed vehicle routes except those 

needed to facilitate public access to the area. 

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. 

Prohibit vegetation sales. 

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 

There would be no other allocations for 

biological resources within this MU. 

2.4.2.2.2.4 Cultural Resources 

Land Use Allocation 

Lake Pleasant/Agua Fria SCRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

A variety of prehistoric and historic sites for 

interpretation, educational uses, and public 

visitation would be available. 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: 

• 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: 
Chapter 2 

102 

• 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. 

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 acceptable 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 daily or more often. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

103 

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, 9,080 acres would be allocated to maintain 

or enhance wilderness characteristics (Map 2-

31). 

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. 

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 2.3.2.2.2.7. 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Land Use Allocation 
Chapter 2 

104 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 

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, educational uses, and 

public visitation. 

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 both Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. 

2.4.2.2.3.1 Special Area 

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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

105 

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. 

The ACEC boundary would be a 1/2 buffer of 

significant cliffs. 

Prohibit building 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 for potential designation 

as a national back country byway. 

Maintain the public portions of this road at a 

BLM Level 2 standard (BLM 9100 Manual) 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 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. 
Chapter 2 

106 

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. 

• 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 

There would be no other biological resource 

allocations within this MU. 

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 
Chapter 2 

107 

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, 

• 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 improving 

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 suitable. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

108 

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. 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 protect the 

natural resources and cultural heritage of the 

Wickenburg SRMA. 

Manage the area of the proposed SRMA for 

a DFC that emphasizes the value of open space, 

scenic and visual quality, and cultural and 

biological assets. Manage the lands within the 

SRMA for multiple-use, including livestock 

grazing and OHV use. 

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 
Chapter 2 

109 

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). 

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. 
Chapter 2 

110 

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. 

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 or 

enhance 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 or 

enhance 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: 
Chapter 2 

111 

• 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 or enhance 

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. 

• 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 or enhance 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in section 

2.4.2.2.3.6. 

Management Actions 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

112 

• 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 

challenges for truck, buggy, ATV, and 

motorcycle competitive racing. 

Close the Vulture Peak ACEC to road building. 

Close tertiary, primitive, reclaiming, single-track 

vehicle routes and washes to motorized use 

on 13,200 acres allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

32. Retain access to the Fools Canyon OHV 

route between the Hassayampa River Canyon 

Wilderness and lands allocated to maintain or 

enhance 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 is still bounded 

on the east by the Hassayampa MU and extends 

west to the Field Office boundary, near the town 

of Wenden. However, the MU's southern 

boundary now includes the private and State 

land south to Interstate 10. The northern 

boundary still 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. 

2.4.2.2.4.1 Special Area 

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. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

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: 
Chapter 2 

113 

• 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 building new vehicle routes. 

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry, close 

to mineral and geothermal leasing, and close to 

mineral material disposal. 

Protect spring sources by not allowing surfacedisturbing activities. 

Acquire all available State 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. 

Black Butte ACEC (800 acres) 

Relevance 

Biological resources. 

Significant source of material for prehistoric tool 

production. 

Importance 

Important raptor nesting habitat in central area. 

The "Vulture" source of obsidian was a major 

source of obsidian for prehistoric groups. 
Chapter 2 

114 

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 

Prohibit mineral material disposal. 

The ACEC boundary would be a 1⁄2 mile buffer 

of significant cliffs. 

Prohibit building of new recreation sites. 

Close all routes within the 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. 

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 in the ACEC. 

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 

Land Use Allocation 

Belmont/Big Horn Mountains WHA 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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

115 

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 

• 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.
Chapter 2 

116 

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, 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 

or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

2.4.2.2.4.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Land Use Allocation 

Within the Harquahala Management Unit, 

106,840 acres would be allocated to maintain or 

enhance 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. 

Management Actions 

Close tertiary, primitive, reclaiming, and singletrack vehicle routes, and washes except routes 

providing access to active 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. 
Chapter 2 

117 

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 or enhance 

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, close to mineral and 

geothermal leasing, and close to mineral 

material disposal. 

Close Black Butte ACEC and lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics to 

mineral material disposal. 

2.4.2.2.4.9 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in section 

2.4.2.2.4.6. 

Management Actions 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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 106,840 acres allocated to maintain or 

enhance 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 
Chapter 2 

118 

motorized vehicle travel the raptor protection 

and Vulture obsidian areas within lands 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. 

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate vehicle routes 

within the Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC 

(41,670 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 PFO's 

administrative area. Most of the Harcuvar 

Mountain range is administered by the Lake 

Havasu's Field Office. The Harcuvar MU is 

bounded on the west and north by the PFO 

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 Area 

Designations 

Alternative C would propose no new special area 

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 other biological resource allocations would 

be proposed for this MU. 

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: 
Chapter 2 

119 

• 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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. 

2.4.2.2.6.1 Special Area 

Designations 

Alternative C proposes no special area 

designations for the Upper Agua Fria River 

Basin MU. 

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 

Land Use Allocation 

Upper Agua Fria River Basin Habitat Corridor 

WHA 

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 on the remaining lands. 

Close, limit, or suitably mitigate motorized 

vehicle routes that conflict with maintaining 
Chapter 2 

120 

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. 

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 

whole 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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). 
Chapter 2 

121 

Other Resource Allocations with 

Transportation and Public Access Prescriptions 

WHAs 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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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 

Land Use Allocation 

Date Creek Mountains WHA (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 

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. 

2.4.2.2.7.3 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

Prescriptions 

WHAs are discussed in the Biological Resources 

section 2.4.2.2.7.1. 
Chapter 2 

122 

Management Actions 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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 would place the strongest 

emphasis on protecting natural landscapes and 

cultural resources by limiting land uses in Agua 

Fria National Monument. The result would 

consist of limiting motorized use in the 

monument and closing more areas to vehicles 

than under the other Alternatives. To preserve 

natural landscapes, access would be limited, 

and the Back Country RMZ would encompass 

most of the monument. Alternative D would 

allocate most cultural resources for limited 

public use and would develop no areas for 

intensive public use. Grazing would not be 

authorized on public lands within the monument, 

and larger areas would be managed for more 

primitive recreation experiences. 

2.5.1.1 Special Area 

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 emphasizing 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 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 

features of value 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 the riparian areas and wildlife 

habitat are maintained and protected from 

degradation. 
Chapter 2 

123 

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 the tributaries to the Agua Fria River to 

determine suitability 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 designate two WHAs and 

one ACEC for managing biological resources 

within Agua Fria National Monument. 

Alternative D would drop Larry Canyon ACEC 

because the monument’s 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. 

Land Use Allocation 

Pronghorn Movement Corridor WHA 

Pronghorn Fawning Habitat WHA 

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: 

• cross known pronghorn movement 

corridors and 

• have a type and a volume of use that 

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. 

Maintenance of wildlife habitat would be given 

management priority in resolving resource 

conflicts. 

Since Alternative D proposes ending livestock 

grazing, remove all fences, and authorizes 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. 
Chapter 2 

124 

Table 2-5. Alternative D: Cultural Resource PublicUse 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 

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. 

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). Alternative D

calls for allocating a Passage RMZ of 990 acres 

along designated vehicle routes that 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, 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. 

Developed Campgrounds: 

• None. 

Campfires 
Chapter 2 

125 

• 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: 

• Prohibit. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use 

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in the 

Transportation and Public 

Access 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 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. 

Developed Campgrounds: 

• None. 

Campfires: 

• Prohibit. 

Recreational Target Shooting: 

• Prohibit. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use 

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in the 

Transportation and Public 

Access 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. 
Chapter 2 

126 

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. 

Developed Campgrounds: 

• None. 

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. 

• 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: 

• Prohibit. 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

Recreation Use 

Discussion of recreation trail 

development can be found in the 

Transportation and Public 

Access 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 

Close grazing allotments and cancel all current 

livestock authorizations for the duration of the 

plan. 
Chapter 2 

127 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Land Use Allocation 

The entire monument is allocated as Limited to 

Designated routes. 

Management Actions 

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 Use: 

• 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 lands, or 

with other adjoining jurisdictions, 

including Tonto and Prescott National 

Forests, Yavapai County, and local 

communities. 

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. 

• 
Chapter 2 

128 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 

• All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Transportation and 

Public Access 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. 

• All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

Within Back Country 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 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. 

Within Passage 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized Use: 

• 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. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

• All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

• Motorized route construction would be 

considered only as mitigation for 

resource conflicts. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: 

• All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Transportation and 

Public Access 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 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 47 miles 

Routes Closed 122 miles 

New Routes 0 miles 

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 non-motorized use than the other 

Alternatives and close more areas to vehicles, 

mining, and grazing. More management is 

dedicated to maintaining primitive recreation 
Chapter 2 

129 

opportunities. The MUs for Alternative D, are 

shown in Map 2-61. 

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 regulation of the Arizona Corporation 

Commission. As stated earlier, 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 

Close grazing allotments to grazing and cancel 

all current livestock authorizations for the 

duration of the plan. 

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. 

Removal of livestock would result in 

rapid achievement of the Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Land Health Standards). 

Management Actions 

Build fencing around grazed lands to control 

livestock incursion. 

Remove public land range-related 

improvements that serve no purpose for other 

resources. Removal would reduce the visual 

impact of former grazing operations. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

130 

Management Actions 

Leasable Minerals 

The following limitations to leasable 

minerals are shown on Map 2-63. 

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 or enhance 

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 or enhance 

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 or enhance 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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. 
Chapter 2 

131 

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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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 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. 

2.5.2.2 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 Area 

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 
Chapter 2 

132 

sites that may have been ancestral to the Perry 

Mesa Tradition that was dominant in Agua Fria 

National Monument. 

Importance 

The Running Deer site and other prehistoric and 

historic sites with important scientific values and 

relationships to sites in the adjacent national 

monument. 

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 

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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

133 

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 other biological resource allocations would 

be made within this MU. 

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 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, 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. 

BLM would continue to work with the Site 

Steward Program to regularly monitor the 

condition of sites. 

2.5.2.2.1.5 Recreation 

Resources 

Land Use Allocation 

Table Mesa SRMA 
Chapter 2 

134 

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 recreation 

settings. Concentrate users in some areas but 

emphasize dispersed use. 

Develop some facilities but stress preserving the 

natural environment in recreation planning. 

Develop the fewest sites needed to accomplish 

resource management objectives. 

Management Actions 

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: 

• 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 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 or 

enhance wilderness characteristics as shown 

on Map 2-71. 

Desired Future Condition 

Manage with an emphasis for non-motorized 

and primitive recreation experiences, tied to 

open space and natural landscapes. Retain 

undeveloped landscapes and the area’s remote 

character. Preserve the area's outstanding 

solitude and primitive recreation experiences. 

In addition to the DFC and management actions 

described in the Wilderness Characteristics 

discussion in the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas section of this chapter, the 

following will also apply. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

135 

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. 

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 or enhance 

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 or 

enhance wilderness characteristics from 

mineral entry and close to mineral material 

disposal. 

2.5.2.2.1.9 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in section 

2.5.2.2.1.6. 

Management Actions 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

Close all secondary, tertiary, reclaiming, and 

single-track vehicle routes and washes on 14,880 

acres allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

47. 
Chapter 2 

136 

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 and manage for 

a diverse network of motorized single and twotrack 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. 

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. 

2.5.2.2.2.1 Special Area 

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. 

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 entire ACEC to motor vehicles. 

Withdraw the ACEC from mineral entry, close 

to mineral and geothermal leasing, and to 

close mineral material disposal. 
Chapter 2 

137 

Administrative Decision 

Continue to patrol archaeological sites and, 

where needed, implement measures to protect 

sites. 

Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC (9,080 acres) 

Relevance 

Highly scenic natural Sonoran Desert 

landscapes, primitive recreation and solitude 

opportunities, desert washes without motorized 

use. 

Occupied desert tortoise habitat. 

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. 

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 close to 

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 nonmotorized recreation setting. 

Maintain the scenic natural landscape in current 

form. 

Maintain the high quality and unfragmented 

wildlife habitat. 
Chapter 2 

138 

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 shown 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 close to 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 other biological resource allocations would 

be made within the Castle Hot Springs MU. 

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. 

Over a span of 15 to 20 years, as the adjacent 

City of Peoria, the Maughn properties, the 
Chapter 2 

139 

Quintero property, 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. 

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 likely be phased out, 

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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

140 

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. 

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 roadednatural 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 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. 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 
Chapter 2 

141 

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 close to mineral material disposal. 

Withdraw Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC and 

Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC from mineral 

entry, close to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and close to mineral material disposal. 

2.5.2.2.2.8 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

Close the entire 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 compatible 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 
Chapter 2 

142 

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 Area 

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. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

Vulture Mountains ACEC (6,120 acres) 

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 close to 

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. 
Chapter 2 

143 

Communication Sites 

No designated communication sites are proposed 

for this MU. 

2.5.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources 

No other biological resource allocations would 

be made within this MU. 

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. 

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. 

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) through purchase, legislation, or 

exchange. 

Prohibit new overhead powerlines, phone lines, 

or communication facilities within one mile of 

identified launching and landing zones. 
Chapter 2 

144 

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 

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 or 

enhance 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 close to mineral 

material disposal. 

Allow vehicle-based camping in designated 

areas. 
Chapter 2 

145 

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 or enhance 

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. 

2.5.2.2.3.8 Mineral Resource 

Management 

Management Actions 

Withdraw the Vulture Mountains ACEC and 

lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics from mineral 

entry, close to mineral and geothermal leasing, 

and close to mineral material disposal. 

2.5.2.2.3.9 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in section 

2.5.2.2.3.6. 

Management Actions 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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 or enhance 

wilderness characteristics as shown on Map 2-

67. 

2.5.2.2.4 Harquahala 

Management Unit 

Alternatives C, D, and E, would slightly expand 

the Harquahala MU. The MU would still 

be bounded on the east by the Hassayampa MU 

and extend west to the Phoenix Field Office 
Chapter 2 

146 

boundary, near the town of Wenden. The MU's 

southern boundary would include the private and 

State land south to Interstate 10. The northern 

boundary would still follow 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. 

2.5.2.2.4.1 Special Area 

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. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Belmont-Big Horn Mountains ACEC 

(77,730 acres) 

Relevance 

Biological resources 

Importance 

Important 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 cessation of 

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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

147 

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 close to mineral material disposal. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

148 

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.

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. 

Prohibit vegetation sales. 
Chapter 2 

149 

Withdraw the entire ACEC from mineral 

entry, close to mineral and geothermal leasing 

and close to 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 other biological resource allocations would 

be made within this MU. 

2.5.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources 

Land Use Allocation 

Harquahala Mountains SCRMA 

Desired Future Condition 

A variety of prehistoric and historic sites for 

interpretation, educational uses, and public 

visitation are available. 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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

150 

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, 

63,400 acres would be allocated to maintain or 

enhance 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 close to 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. 

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 or enhance 

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. 
Chapter 2 

151 

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 or enhance 

wilderness characteristics. 

2.5.2.2.4.9 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in section 

2.5.2.2.4.6. 

Management Actions 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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 63,400 acres 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics as shown on Map 2-68. 

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 PFO'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 PFO 

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: 
Chapter 2 

152 

• 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 Area 

Designations 

Alternative D proposes no special area 

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 other biological resource allocations would 

be made within this MU. 

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. 

2.5.2.2.5.8 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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, 
Chapter 2 

153 

• 207,040 acres of Arizona State land, 

• 98,215 acres of private land. 

2.5.2.2.6.1 Special Area 

Designations 

Alternative D proposes no special area 

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 

Land Use Allocation 

Date Creek Mountains WHA 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 cessation of 

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. 
Chapter 2 

154 

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 WHA area to 

mineral material disposal. 

2.5.2.2.6.8 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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 Area, 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 Area 

Designations 

Nomination to National Recreation Trail 

System 

Black Canyon Trail 

Desired Future Condition 

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 

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). 
Chapter 2 

155 

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. 

2.5.2.2.7.2 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 

Upper Agua Fria River Basin Habitat Corridor 

WHA 

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 cessation of grazing, 

remove 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. 
Chapter 2 

156 

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. 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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. Transportation and Public 

Access 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 
Chapter 2 

157 

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 

vehicle routes that conflict with maintenance of 

riparian and wildlife values within the Upper 

Agua Fria River Basin Habitat Corridor WHA 

area, in order to achieve DFC. 

2.6 Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative E is BLM's preferred RMP 

Alternative. 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 

provide an optimal balance between 

authorized resource use and the protection 

and long-term sustainability of sensitive 

resources within both of the planning areas. 

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 BLM's preferred Alternative 

because it 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 preferred 

Alternative for each resource, including 

DFC and relevant management actions where 

suitable. 

2.6.1.1 Special Area 

Designations 

Back Country Byways 

Bloody Basin Road Back Country Byway (Map 

2-72) 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a vehicle route accessible by highclearance 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 sensitive to 

monument resources and provides a high-quality 

visitor experience. 

Wildlife habitat is unfragmented, and pronghorn 

movement remains unimpeded by visitation that 

may result from designation. 

Management Actions

Evaluate Bloody Basin Road for designation as a 

back country byway. If the road qualifies and 

designation would promote the national 

monument's objectives, the following 

prescriptions would be implemented. 

Maintain at BLM Level 2 standard, (BLM 9100 

Manual) 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. 
Chapter 2 

158 

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. 

Administrative Actions 

Develop a cooperative and collaborative site 

plan with landowners and other agencies 

that would be affected by the byway 

designation. 

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 

Land Use Allocations 

Pronghorn Fawning Habitat WHA (16,810 

acres) Map 2-73. 

Pronghorn Movement Corridor WHA (22,520 

acres) Map 2-73. 

Desired Future Condition 

Manage habitat to avoid fragmentation and 

provide conditions that promote natural 

movement and fawning behavior. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

159 

Limit or suitably mitigate new recreation site 

developments in pronghorn movement 

corridors to avoid disturbing pronghorn 

movement. 

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. 

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 SCRMAs 

undeveloped. 

High Use SCRMA (1,570 acres) 

• Pueblo la Plata and Fort Silver (Pueblo 

la Plata complex) north of Bloody Basin 

Road on Perry Mesa. 

• Rollie Site (AZ N:16:231(ASM)) near 

Sunset Point on Black Mesa. 

• Historic Teskey homestead near the 

Agua Fria River. 

Moderate Use SCRMA (8,750 acres) 

• 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. 

Low Use area (60,570 acres BLM) 

Manage all remaining areas outside the 

SCRMAs as areas of low public use that are not 

available for on-the-ground 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 

within it. These zones include a Back Country 

RMZ of 57,200 acres to manage and maintain 

the natural landscape character (Map 2-74). A 

Passage RMZ of 1,300 acres would be allocated 

100 feet from the centerline of designated routes 

that pass through or enter into the Back Country 
Chapter 2 

160 

RMZ, to manage vehicle-based visitation. The 

remainder of the monument would be allocated 

as a Front Country RMZ of 12,440 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. 

Land Use Allocation 

Front Country Recreation Management Zone 

(12,440 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 do the 

following. 

• 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. 

• 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 if for 

a permitted event in the monument or 

recreation site. Vending for permitted 

events might be included with the SRP 

for the permitted event if the permittee 

is responsible for the vending 

operations. If not, a separate SRP 

for vending would be required. 

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. 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 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 
Chapter 2 

161 

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 

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: 

• 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. 

• Allow campfires at designated 

campsites/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 recreation trail 

development can be found in the 

Transportation and Public 

Access section 2.6.1.9. 

Badger Springs: 

• 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 

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 

• 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. 
Chapter 2 

162 

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 

(57,200 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. 

• Authorize no competitive motorized or 

mechanized races. Consider other 

competitive events on a case-by-case 

basis on how they conform to 

monument values. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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: 
Chapter 2 

163 

• 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 

Transportation and Public 

Access section 2.6.1.9. 

Land Use Allocation 

Passage Recreation Management Zone (1,300 

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. 

• 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. 
Chapter 2 

164 

• 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 

permanently suspend this use to prevent 

resource damage. 

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 

Transportation and Public 

Access 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 visual impacts of proliferating 

campfire rings. 

2.6.1.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Land Use Allocation 

Within the national monument, 20,900 acres 

would be allocated to maintain or enhance 

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: 
Chapter 2 

165 

Lands within the monument allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

contain outstanding opportunities for solitude 

and naturalness. Maintain or enhance 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 encouraging or requiring visitors 

to use designated routes. 

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 or to 

enhance wilderness 

characteristics (37,560 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 (12,440 acres), and 

• 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. As much 

as 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 
Chapter 2 

166 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Land Use Allocation 

The entire monument is allocated as Limited to 

Designated routes (Map 2-16). 

Management Actions 

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 

Recreation Use: 

• Develop trails as needed to protect 

monument's resources and enhance 

interpretive opportunities. 

• Ensure that all construction is 

compatible with social and managerial 

settings. 

• 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 to enhance 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. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

• Relocate segments of routes when 

needed to reduce resource damage 

and help protect the monument's 

resources. 

• Allow building of routes for access to 

public lands around privately owned 

parcels (inholdings), if needed to meet 

administrative or public needs. To 

increase access and provide an 

interpretive motorized opportunity for 

ATVs in T. 10 N., R. 3 E., Section 10, 

build a new route to connect existing 

routes. 

• All construction would be compatible 

with Desired Future Conditions for the 

construction area. 

• Design construction to blend into the 

environment. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Transportation Access 
Chapter 2 

167 

• All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Transportation and 

Public Access section 2.7.2.10. 

• 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. 

• Improve access, which may include the 

following: designing and 

installing needed improvements at lowwater crossings, installing vehicle 

control guards, and providing for visitor 

safety on Bloody Basin Road. 

Within Back Country 

Trail Construction for Non-motorized 

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. 

Route Construction for Motorized Use: 

• Routes open for administrative use will 

be maintained as needed to provide for 

the use. 

• Allow emergency trail 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 trails 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 

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. 

Off-Highway Vehicles 

• All vehicles would be limited to 

designated routes consistent with the 

discussion in the Transportation and 

Public Access 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 
Chapter 2 

168 

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, 

• 72 miles of tertiary roads, 

accessible mainly by four-wheel drive 

or, in some areas, high-clearance, twowheel drive vehicles, and 

• 4 miles of motorized trails, accessible by 

motorcycles and ATVs. 

The designated route network would 

include closing 70 miles of routes, and 

building one mile of new route to enhance user 

enjoyment while protecting 

monument's resources. Please see Map 2-

76. Routes designated in the monument are 

shown below. 

Open Routes 101 miles 

Closed Routes 70 miles 

New Routes 1 mile 

2.6.2 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area 

BLM has developed Alternative E as the 

preferred Alternative 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 

resource management actions for Alternative E

that apply throughout the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area (i.e. they are not specific to any 

MU). 

2.6.2.1.1 Lands and Realty 

Land Tenure Adjustments 

Alternative E proposes 38,755 acres of the 

lands within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area as potentially suitable for disposal. Of 

these, 29,230 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 
Chapter 2 

169 

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. 

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. 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. Base 

stipulations 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. 
Chapter 2 

170 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

Administrative Actions 

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 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. 

2.6.2.2 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, DFCs, 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 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 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). 
Chapter 2 

171 

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. 

2.6.2.2.1.1 Special Area 

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 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 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. 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). 

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 

172 

which would be retained and subject to valid 

existing rights. 

Utility and Transportation Corridors 

Multiple-Purpose Corridors 

Alternative E would adjust the western boundary 

of the Black Canyon corridor 1 mile west of the 

true center of 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-ofway and rights-of-way for other utilities.) 

A new corridor southwest of Agua Fria National 

Monument would be added to extend the Black 

Canyon utility corridor completely across 

BLM's land south and west of Black Canyon 

City. 

2.6.2.2.1.3 Biological Resources 

No other biological allocations would be made 

within the Black Canyon MU. Biological 

resources would be subject to management 

guidance in Biological Resources from the 

Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter and in Biological 

Resources from the Management Common to 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section 

of this chapter. 

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 

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 these 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. 

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, 
Chapter 2 

173 

• 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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

174 

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 5 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 

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 
Chapter 2 

175 

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 one staging area along Table Mesa 

Road for the following purposes: 

• meet high motorized and non-motorized 

recreation demand, 

• provide for parking, 

• unloading of OHVs and horses, 

• overnight camping, and 

• large special events. 
Chapter 2 

176 

Development could include the following: 

• informational signs, 

• kiosks, 

• picnic tables, 

• loading ramp, and 

• soil stabilization for dust abatement. 

Limit to 10 acres the area of exposed barren soil 

for the site. Mark or delineate the 

perimeter 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: 

• determine existing physical and social 

impacts of recreation activities, 

• define desired conditions and standards, 

• establish monitoring plans to manage 

camping and other recreation uses. 
Chapter 2 

177 

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 or 

enhance 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 solitude and primitive recreation 

experiences. Conserve rock cabins, artifacts, 

petroglyph sites, prehistoric structures, and 

riparian areas. Manage the current 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 or enhance 

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). 

2.6.2.2.1.9 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Land Use Allocation 

The Black Canyon Management Unit would 

be allocated as a limited use area, with 
Chapter 2 

178 

motorized and mechanized vehicle uses limited 

to designated routes (Map 2-16). 

Other Resource Allocations with 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in section 

2.6.2.2.1.6. 

Management Actions 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

Develop non-motorized 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 or enhance 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) 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 nonmotorized 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 Area 

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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

179 

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. 

Back Country Byways 

Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn Mine 

Road Back Country Byway 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a vehicle route accessible by highclearance vehicles through the rugged Sonoran 

Desert landscape in the Buckhorn and 

Hieroglyphic Mountains, with the high 

Bradshaw Mountains as a backdrop. Interpret 

the diverse resources and cultural history 

to create a greater understanding of the region's 

resources and a greater appreciation for the 

people who live there now and lived there in the 

past. Along this route create a comprehensive 

visitor experience that is sensitive to both 

resources and private lands and provides a highquality visitor experience. Maintain a semiprimitive motorized recreation setting 1⁄2 mile to 

either side of the road’s centerline. 

Management Actions 

Evaluate Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn 

Mine Road for nomination as a back country 

byway. If the byway is designated, implement 

the following: 

• Maintain the public portions of this 

road at a BLM Level 2 standard, (BLM 

9100 Manual) passable by highclearance vehicles. 

• Maintain the current historical visual 

character 1⁄2 mile to either side of the 

road’s centerline. 

• Secure easements and rights-of-way 

where needed to ensure long-term public 

access along Constellation Mine Road. 

• Interpret and protect the route’s 

historical features, including original 

and stabilized road masonry structures; 

mining properties; mining districts; and 

historic homesteads, settlements, and 

ranches. 
Chapter 2 

180 

• Install directional, safety, and 

interpretive signs to enhance public use, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of the route. 

• Establish a friends group to monitor and 

help interpret the route and present the 

route and area's natural and human 

history. 

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 

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 other allocations would be made for 

biological resources within Castle Hot Springs 

MU. Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in Biological 

Resources in the Management Common to Both 

Planning Areas section of this chapter and 

Biological Resources in the Management 

Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area section of this chapter. 

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, 
Chapter 2 

181 

• 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 

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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

182 

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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

183 

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 2 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). 

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. 

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
Chapter 2 

184 

Recreation discussion of the Management 

Common to the Bradshaw-Harquahala 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 

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, 
Chapter 2 

185 

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. 

2.6.2.2.2.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Land Use Allocation 

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. 

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, 

• Lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics to Class II 

objectives, 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Land Use Allocation 
Chapter 2 

186 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

Prescriptions 

ACECs and Back Country Byways 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. 

Allocations to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in section 

2.6.2.2.2.6. 

Management Actions 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

Close the fenced area within the Tule Creek 

ACEC (640 acres) to motor vehicles. 

The public portions of the proposed 

Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn Mine Road 

Back Country Byways would be maintained to 

BLM Level 2 standard, (BLM 9100 

Manual) passable by high-clearance vehicles. 

The Castle Hot Springs SRMA (112,430 acres 

BLM) would include containing two Recreation 

Management Zones, 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 would 

be closed except those necessary to 

facilitate administrative access to the area. 

Prohibit the building of new motorized routes. 

Within the 6,550 acres of lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics, 

limit motorized vehicle use to designated 

routes, as shown on Map 2-84. 

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 within the wilderness character 

allocation area to link with the Hells Canyon 

trail system and ultimately to the Maricopa 

County regional trail system. 

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 as shown on 

Map 2-84 would be considered an 

implementation action. 
Chapter 2 

187 

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 Area 

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. 

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 

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 

The ACEC boundary provides a 1-mile buffer 

around the cliffs that are significant to raptor 

nesting. 

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. 

Back Country Byways 

Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn Mine 

Road Back Country Byway 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a vehicle route accessible by highclearance vehicles through views of the rugged 

Sonoran Desert landscape in the Buckhorn and 
Chapter 2 

188 

Hieroglyphic Mountains, with the high 

Bradshaw Mountains as a backdrop. Interpret 

the diverse resources and cultural history in a 

way that creates a greater understanding of the 

region's resources and a greater appreciation for 

the people who live there and have lived there in 

the past. Along this route create a 

comprehensive visitor experience that is 

sensitive to both resources and private lands and 

provides a high-quality visitor experience. 

Maintain a semi-primitive motorized recreation 

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

centerline. 

Management Actions 

Evaluate Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn 

Mine Road for nomination as a back country 

byway. If it is designated, implement the 

following actions. 

• Keep the public portions of this road 

maintained at a BLM Level 2 standard, 

(BLM 9100 Manual) passable by highclearance vehicles. 

• Allocations for Visual Resource 

Management designed to achieve 

Desired Future Conditions are discussed 

in section 2.6.2.2.3.7. 

• Secure easements and rights-of-way 

where needed to ensure long-term public 

access along Constellation Mine Road. 

• Interpret and protect the route's 

historical features, including original 

road construction structures; mining 

properties and districts; and historic 

homesteads, settlements, and ranching 

history. 

• Maintain the road to protect and 

stabilize its historical features. 

• Mitigate wildlife movement as needed. 

• Install directional, safety, and 

interpretive signs to enhance public use, 

enjoyment, and stewardship of the route. 

• Establish a friends group to monitor and 

help interpret the route and present the 

route and area’s natural and human 

history. 

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 

Designate all State highway system routes as 

transportation corridors, including the following: 

• a new 1-mile-wide corridor along U.S. 

89 from Yarnell to Wickenburg 

• a new 1-mile-wide corridor along U.S. 

60 south of Wickenburg 

• a new corridor for the Wickenburg 

Bypass (to be designated as U.S. 93) 

• a new corridor for the Canada-Mexico 

(CanaMex) highway extending north 

from Interstate 10 to the Vulture Mine 

Road, connecting with the Wickenburg 

Bypass somewhere in the vicinity of 

Vulture Mine. 

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 
Chapter 2 

189 

resources or management objectives along its 

route. 

2.6.2.2.3.3 Biological Resources 

Alternative E proposes no other biological 

designations for the Hassayampa MU. 

Biological resources subject to management 

guidance are in Biological Resources from the 

Management Common to Both Planning 

Areas section of this chapter and Biological 

Resources from the Management Common to 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area section 

of this chapter. 

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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

190 

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 within it (Map 2-85): 

• Stanton RMZ, 

• Wickenburg Community RMZ, 

• San Domingo Wash RMZ, and 

• Vulture Mine RMZ. 

Desired Future Condition 

The long-term goals for the area are as follows: 

• to conserve the area’s natural, scenic, 

recreation, and cultural resources, 

• to recognize and protect private property 

rights, and 

• to maintain diverse recreation activities 

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: 

• 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), 
Chapter 2 

191 

• 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 and Vulture RMZs. 

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. 

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, and other 

recreation uses. 

Maintain a variety of recreation settings and 

opportunities with an emphasis on semiprimitive motorized and roaded-natural settings 

and opportunities. 

Management Actions 

Prohibit motorized competitive races in the 

RMZ. 

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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

192 

scenic landscapes and maintaining cultural and 

biological assets. 

Offer quality recreation and tourism with proper 

management and marketing. Users exhibit a 

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. 

Red Top Trail System 

Desired Future Condition 

Provide a high-quality non-motorized trail 

network and amenities in the Red Top Mountain 

area. Allow 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 

• and organized events. 

Development could include the following: 

• informational signs, 

• kiosks, 

• picnic tables, 

• hitching posts, 
Chapter 2 

193 

• troughs for water hauled to the site, and 

• soil stabilization for dust abatement. 

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 the high 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. 

"The Box" (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. 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. 

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 modify visitor 

behavior 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) 
Chapter 2 

194 

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 at least 10 miles of single- and two-track 

motorized routes to provide an array of 

challenges for ATVs, 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 1 day use motorized 

and non-motorized 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: 
Chapter 2 

195 

• 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 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 mining and settlement history of the 

Vulture City Cemetery. 

Management Actions 

Locate at least 15 miles of single- and two-track 

motorized routes to provide 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 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 2.6.2.2.3.7. 

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 or enhance wilderness characteristics 

for the Hassayampa MU. 

2.6.2.2.3.7 Visual Resources 

Land Use Allocations 
Chapter 2 

196 

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 Resource 

Management 

Alternative E proposes no mineral withdrawals 

or closures within the Hassayampa MU. 

2.6.2.2.3.9 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

Prescriptions 

ACECs and Back Country Byways 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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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 

Maintain the proposed Constellation Mine 

Road/Buckhorn Mine Road, if designated as a 

back country byway, at a BLM Level 2 standard, 

(BLM 9100 Manual) passable by high-clearance 

vehicles. 

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. 

The Wickenburg SRMA would include a system 

of high-quality equestrian and motorized trails 

surrounding Wickenburg. Develop and 

designate a comprehensive motorized and nonmotorized trail system. Identify, analyze, build, 

and designate new single- and multi-use, hiking, 
Chapter 2 

197 

equestrian, and vehicle routes, and link them to 

local trail systems and communities. Routes 

include a proposed motorized and nonmotorized Wickenburg-Lake Pleasant Regional 

Park-Black Canyon Trail corridor. Complete a 

detailed, comprehensive, site-specific inventory 

and designation of all existing and proposed 

motorized (OHV) routes and non-motorized 

trails on public land in the SRMA within three 

years of plan approval. 

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. 

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. 

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. Locate at least 10 miles of single- and twotrack motorized routes to provide an array of 

challenges for ATV, and motorcycle competitive 

races. 

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. Locate at least 15 

miles of single- and two-track motorized routes 

to provide an array of challenges for truck, 

buggy, ATV, and motorcycle competitive races. 

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. 

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 

Alternatives C, D, and E would slightly 

expand the Harquahala MU. The MU would 

still be bounded on the east by the 

Hassayampa MU and would extend west to 

the PFO boundary near the town of 

Wenden. However, the MU would include 
Chapter 2 

198 

private and State land south to Interstate 10. 

The northern boundary would still follow 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 Area 

Designations 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC (96,430 

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 ONA does the following: 

• encloses and preserves unique 

biological resources, 

• conserves significant cultural and 

historic sites, and 

• protects distinctive vegetation and 

wildlife communities. 

• 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 ONA 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 

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 

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. 

Preserve outstanding opportunities for highquality hiking, backpacking, hunting, wildlife 

observation, and cultural study prospects. 

Permit vehicle access only on designated routes. 

Practicing backcountry skills, 

Attaining isolation from other users

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, 
Chapter 2 

199 

and access to water for healthy wildlife 

populations. Accommodate: 

• interpretive development, 

• educational uses, 

• and public visitation at selected 

prehistoric and historic sites in the 

ONA. (For further information on 

public use of cultural resources, see 

Appendix E.) 

Management Actions 

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated 

routes. 

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 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 because of the ONA resources on such 

lands. 

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 a set of the following actions: 

• building visitor facilities,

• 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 

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 
Chapter 2 

200 

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 ONA 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 for the following: 

• preserving good non-motorized 

recreation opportunities and settings, 

• conserving 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 

ONA 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 inhibits 

achieving DFC. 

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. 

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. 

Prohibit the collecting of minerals and 

fossils if rockhounding increases to the point 

of damaging the integrity of the Vulture 

obsidian source and related archaeological 

sites. 
Chapter 2 

201 

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 

Designate all State highway system routes as 

transportation corridors, including the new 1-

mile-wide corridor along U.S. 60 near the 

Maricopa-La Paz County line. 

2.6.2.2.4.3 Biological Resources 

Land Use Allocation 

Belmont/Big Horn Mountains WHA (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. 

2.6.2.2.4.4 Cultural Resources 

Nearly the entire area of the Harquahala 

SCRMA is included within The Harquahala 

Mountains ONA ACEC. Management of 

cultural resources in the Harquahala SCRMA 

within the Harquahala Mountains ONA 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 
Chapter 2 

202 

public use and interpretive development 

consistent with management actions described 

for the Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC. 

Acquire 700 acres south of Aguila to protect 

significant cultural resources. Complete an 

archaeological survey of this area to evaluate the 

integrity of archaeological sites and determine 

site protection measures. Manage cultural 

resources to conform to prescriptions for the 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC. Acquire 

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 or 

enhance 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 the 

following: 

• 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, 

55,480 acres would be allocated to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics as shown 

on Map 2-89. 

Desired Future Condition 

Maintain and manage wilderness characteristics, 

open space, and wildlife habitat. Retain natural 

landscapes. Ensure high-quality natural 

landscapes, solitude, 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 
Chapter 2 

203 

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. Routes proposed to be designated as 

open are shown on Map 2-86. 

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 ONA ACEC, 

Black Butte ONA ACEC, VRM Class 

II. 

• Lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics are discussed in section 

2.6.2.2.4.6. 

Management Actions 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 
Chapter 2 

204 

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes 

within the Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC 

(96,430 acres BLM). Routes that would be 

designated as open are shown on Map 2-86. 

Prohibit new vehicle routes unless needed to 

mitigate resource conflicts and achieve DFC. 

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes 

within the Black Butte ONA ACEC (8,260 acres 

BLM). Proposed open routes are shown on Map 

2-86. Build non-motorized trails and recreation 

facilities within the Black Butte ONA 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. 

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes 

within the 55,480 acres allocated to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics as shown on 

Map 2-86. Routes proposed to be designated as 

open are also shown on Map 2-86. 

Implementation Actions 

Designation of a route network as shown on 

Map 2-86 would be considered an 

implementation action. 

2.6.2.2.5 Harcuvar Management 

Unit 

The Harcuvar MU encompasses the easternmost 

end of the Harcuvar Mountains within the PFO'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 PFO 

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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

205 

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 

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 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. 

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 

Build 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. 

2.6.2.2.6.3 Biological Resources 

Biological resources would be subject to 

management guidance in the Biological 

Resources discussion of the Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas section, and 

the Biological Resources discussion of the 

Management Common to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area section of this 

chapter. No other 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 

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 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. 
Chapter 2 

206 

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 

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). 
Chapter 2 

207 

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 of 

2002 (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 5 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. 

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: 

• 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. 
Chapter 2 

208 

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 Management Unit 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

Transportation and Public Access 

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 

No cross-country motorized travel would be 

permitted except in cases of emergency or for 

approved administrative purposes. 

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. 

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 and Transportation 

Management Plan. This plan would implement 

the designated route system for the Management 

Unit. 
Chapter 2 

209 

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 because BLM remains 

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). 

According to both of these RMPs, there was no 

support for retaining these lands for resource 

allocation, special area designation, or public 

access concerns. Therefore, the selected 

Alternatives for these RMPs contained no 

resource management actions for these parcels. 

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, which are common to all 

Action Alternatives, were developed during the 

public involvement and Alternative development 

phases of the RMP and EIS process. 

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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

210 

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 

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 
Chapter 2 

211 

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, 

• 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 adjusting land tenure (including land 

exchange, purchase, sale, and donation), 

consider the following: 

• Evaluate and balance all resource 

requirements and consolidate land 
Chapter 2 

212 

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 effects of long-term 

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 

how land tenure adjustments can 

enhance both local communities and 

environmental health. 

Land Use Allocations 

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. 

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 continues 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. 
Chapter 2 

213 

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. 

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 this land use plan. 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 
Chapter 2 

214 

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: 

• 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 

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 would 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 would be managed 

according to the categories shown on Map 2-92. 

Habitat management categories and boundaries 

would be revised as new population information 

becomes available. The criteria that would 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.
Chapter 2 

215 

• 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 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. 

In Category I and II tortoise habitats, all 

motorized competitive races would be prohibited 

between March 1 through October 15. All other 

use requests during this time would 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 would be 

permissible to achieve no net loss in quantity or 

quality of desert tortoise habitat. 

All mining plans of operations would be 

assessed for impacts to desert tortoise habitat on 

a case-by-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 conflict 

resolution. Priority species include the 

following: 

• game species, 

• special status species, 

• birds of conservation concern, and 

• raptors. 
Chapter 2 

216 

See Appendix H for a complete list. Priority 

habitats include areas allocated as WHAs 

(pronghorn fawning habitat, pronghorn 

movement corridors, bighorn sheep habitat), 

ACECs, riparian areas, springs, bat roosts, and 

desert tortoise habitat. 

Reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental 

stockings (augmentations) of wildlife 

populations would 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 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 

Terms and Conditions and Conservation 

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 would 

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 would 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). 
Chapter 2 

217 

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 would be limited to 25 percent annually. 

Domestic livestock utilization of native riparian 

trees along streams occupied by Gila chub, Gila 

topminnow, and desert pupfish would 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 would be limited to no more 

than 1/2 the watershed in any two year period. 

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 one year of 

treating the watershed with prescribed burns. 

All monitoring results will be shared with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually. 

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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

218 

Management Actions - Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher

Within the range of southwestern willow 

flycatcher, livestock grazing would 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 

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, ensure the maintenance of habitat 
Chapter 2 

219 

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 would 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 would 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 would 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 habitat 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. 

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) 

continue to be applied to all activities on the 

public land. 
Chapter 2 

220 

The density and distribution of wildlife waters 

would be maintained, improved, or increased 

throughout the planning areas to sustain and 

enhance wildlife populations across their range. 

All existing wildlife waters would be maintained 

or improved as needed to maintain the presence 

of perennial water for wildlife. 

New wildlife waters would be built when needed 

to maintain, restore, or enhance native wildlife 

populations or distributions. 

Reasonable administrative vehicular access 

would be allowed for AGFD staff to wildlife 

water facilities for maintenance, repair, or 

research. 

Water developments, including those for 

purposes other than wildlife would 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 could be 

released include 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, would 

consider the effect on wildlife habitat values. 

Routes that conflict with maintaining sensitive 

wildlife habitat would be mitigated to achieve 

DFC. Mitigation would 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 may be allowed by law 

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 would 

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 would 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. 

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 would be carried out in 

cooperation and collaboration with AGFD or 

suitable weed management associations or other 

organizations. 
Chapter 2 

221 

Nonintrusive, non-native plant species would 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 

would be emphasized when restoring or 

rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands. 

Administrative Actions – Invasive Species 

A monitoring, management, and educational 

program would 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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

Structural and material stabilization techniques 

introduce chemical, mechanical, or structural 

elements to retard the deterioration of cultural 

resources. 

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 
Chapter 2 

222 

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/site 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, to the extent needed 

to 

• preserve archaeological data, 

• plan for interpretive facilities, and 

• provide 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. 
Chapter 2 

223 

2.7.1.6 Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Land Use Allocation 

Lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

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 or enhance the 

landscape values described in Attachment 1 of 

that IM (which can be found in Appendix I). 

Desired Future Condition 

Lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

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. The use of the area will generally be 

through non-motorized and non-mechanical 

means. Motorized use that does not degrade 

resources or conflict with DFC may be allowed 

on designated routes. Non-motorized 

conveyances (such as bicycles) will be allowed 

on designated trails. There will be no or 

minimal developed recreation facilities. Lands 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics will provide opportunities for 

visitor adventure, challenge, solitude, and 

discovery. Recreation settings and associated 

experiences will be semi-primitive nonmotorized 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. 

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 or 

enhance 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 or enhance 

wilderness characteristics would be managed to 

protect and enhance primitive characteristics. 

The management actions are designed to 

• maintain low interaction among users, 
Chapter 2 

224 

• reveal minimal evidence of other 

visitors, and 

• provide a high probability of 

experiencing isolation from the sights 

and sounds of other humans. 

Lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics would be managed to 

have limited evidence of human-induced 

management restrictions and controls, except the 

minimum needed to protect resources. 

Visitors would be encouraged to practice Leave 

No Trace skills to avoid human-induced 

impacts. 

Motorized vehicle routes within lands allocated 

to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

would be designated in the RMP and shown on 

maps. 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 not 

compatible with achieving the DFC above 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. 

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 enable 

coordination of access for hunters with valid 
Chapter 2 

225 

hunting licenses and permits for the affected 

hunting unit. 

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 would preserve and protect 

significant vertebrate paleontological resources 

for present and future generations. Scientifically 

significant invertebrates (to be determined by a 

qualified paleontologist) would also be 

protected. 

Land Use Allocations 

Areas would 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 would 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 would be 

evaluated for sensitivity. The sites would then 

be classified and managed consistent with the 

land use allocation classifications described 

above. 

Table 2-6. Paleontological Sensitivity Classes 

Administrative Actions 

BLM would include paleontological resources in 

its cultural resources public education 

programs. These programs would: 

• provide information directly related to 

procedures to be followed if fossils are 

found, and 

• specify fines for removing fossils from 

BLM-administered lands. 

BLM would analyze the potential for 

paleontological resources and do the following: 

• Develop a sensitivity map for 

paleontological resources and require 

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 

human-caused adverse 

impacts. 
Chapter 2 

226 

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. 

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 

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. 

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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

227 

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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

228 

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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

229 

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 

Under the proposed action, BLM-administered 

public lands would 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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

230 

• 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, 

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 
Chapter 2 

231 

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 

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 new FMP planning process will be 

completed in 2006 and will have fire 

management units containing polygons based on 

the following: 
Chapter 2 

232 

• 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 activities along national 

historic trails would be conducted to ensure that 

no adverse effects occur to resources listed in 

the legislation designating the trail. 

Fire management efforts along river segments 

recommended as eligible for designation under 

the WSR Act would use measures that 

avoid degrading the outstandingly remarkable 

values that qualify the rivers for designation. 

ACECs and back country byways 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. 

2.7.2 Management Common 

to Agua Fria National 

Monument 

2.7.2.1 Management Units 

The size and complexity of Agua Fria National 

Monument do not require subdivision into 

MUs. For this analysis the monument is a 

MU in and of itself. 
Chapter 2 

233 

2.7.2.2 Special Area 

Designations 

Management Actions 

Continue to manage the suitable WSR proposals 

for non-impairment (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 obsolete. 

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. Consider acquiring non-Federal 

lands within the monument if they become 

available from a willing seller. Upon 

acquisition, these lands would automatically 

become a part of the monument. Consider 

acquiring adjacent non-Federal lands that would 

enhance monument values if they become 

available from a willing seller. 

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 

national monument’s 

proclamation. Therefore, such corridors within 

the monument would 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 with 

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, 

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. 

 
Chapter 2 

234 

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 be limited to surveys, 

mapping, and other noninvasive documentation 

methods. Preserve the integrity of these sites 

and their settings through use restrictions and 

protective measures. 

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: 
Chapter 2 

235 

• 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. 

• 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. 
Chapter 2 

236 

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. 

2.7.2.7 Recreation Resources 

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 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 
Chapter 2 

237 

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. 

Management Actions related to motorized and 

non-motorized recreation routes are described in 

the Transportation and Public Access 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 Transportation and Public Access 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 
Chapter 2 

238 

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. 

Management Actions 

Management Actions related to motorized and 

non-motorized recreation routes are described in 

the Transportation and Public Access 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 

Camping would be limited to 14 days within the 

monument unless authorized by the monument's 

manager. 

Collection of Natural Resources 

Collecting all natural organic and natural 

inorganic materials (except for 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's 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 
Chapter 2 

239 

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. 

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, 
Chapter 2 

240 

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 with 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 

17, Subpart E found at 

http://www.gpoacess.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. 
Chapter 2 

241 

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. 

2.7.2.10 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 areas, roads, routes and/or 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 country, the route 

is closed until the roadway can once again 

support a vehicle without damage. 

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. 

OHV use 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. 
Chapter 2 

242 

Many routes would be retained in a primitive 

condition to discourage excessive speeds so as to 

protect monument values and promote public 

safety. 

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. 

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 or 

trails 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 hiking, 

equestrian and/or mechanized trail development 

under the above guidelines. 

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. 

Passage 

Designated secondary and tertiary roads or 

single-track motorized vehicle 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. 
Chapter 2 

243 

2.7.3 Management Common 

to the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area 

2.7.3.1 Management Units 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF MUs 

The Alternatives explore different combinations 

of Management Units (MUs). The following 

Desired Future Conditions for the MUs apply to 

any Alternative where that MU is proposed. 

Management Unit 

Black Canyon 

Desired Future Condition 

A diverse group of interested citizens 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 view 

includes multiple uses that are consistent with 

and support the overall community vision. 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 17 between 

Yavapai and Maricopa Counties 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 

BLM’s lands. The strategy includes a 

coordinated trail linkage between the Black 

Canyon City and Wickenburg areas. 

A joint-citizen, agency, and Government 

workgroup is engaged to identify nonpublic 

(private and State) lands within the Black 

Canyon MU with high-value biological, cultural, 

scenic, open space, access, or recreation 

resources. Recommendations and objectives on 

land access and open space conservation are 

delivered to BLM and other responsible 

agencies. 

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. 

Management Unit 

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 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 increased 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 
Chapter 2 

244 

that conform to and support the overall 

community vision continue. 

A system of high-quality OHV and hiking trails 

exist that afford a multitude of opportunities 

for mountain bike, four-wheel drive, ATV, and 

motorcycle enthusiasts. 

A diverse group of interested citizens are 

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. 

A citizen, community, and Government working 

group exists to identify management options for 

land acquisition or alternative protection for 

State and private lands within the Castle Hot 

Springs MU. State and private lands with highvalue biological, cultural, scenic, open space, 

access, or recreation resources have 

been identified and prioritized. This group 

would deliver to BLM and other responsible 

agencies all recommendations and management 

objectives on proposed acquisition, easements, 

access, and open-space conservation actions. 

When BLM is the suitable entity, acquire lands, 

easements, development rights, or conservation 

agreements through the following: 

• exchange of private lands; 

• conservation agreements for high-value 

cultural, open space, biological, or 

recreation lands; and 

• purchase of access agreements or rightsof-way. 

Study and, if feasible and consistent with law, 

establish parts of the MU as a fee-for-use area. 

Apply fees for the following purposes: 

• to fund and maintain motorized routes 

and non-motorized trails and facilities; 

• to improve law enforcement, and 

• to enhance user and community 

education, stewardship, and volunteer 

programs. 

Management Unit 

Wickenburg 

Desired Future Condition 

A system of high-quality equestrian trails 

surround Wickenburg to buffer the area from 

urban sprawl and preserve the open-space value 

of the local landscape. This trail system affords 

many opportunities for all recreation enthusiasts 

and serve to enhance the lifestyle, culture, and 

cultural history of community residents. 

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. 

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. 

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 livestock grazing and OHV use. 

A joint citizen, community, and Government 

working group exists to determine management 

options for land acquisition or alternative 

protection for State and private lands within the 

Wickenburg MU. State and private lands with 

high-value biological, cultural, scenic, open 

space, access, or recreation resources are 

identified and prioritized. This group delivers to 

BLM and other responsible agencies, all 

recommendations, management objectives, 

proposed acquisition, easements, access, and 

open-space conservation actions. 

When BLM is the suitable entity, acquire lands, 

easements, development rights, or conservation 

agreements through the following means: 

• exchange of private lands; 
Chapter 2 

245 

• conservation agreements for high-value 

cultural, open space, biological, or 

recreation lands; and 

• purchase of access agreements or rightsof-way. 

Management Unit 

Harquahala 

Desired Future Condition 

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 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 landscape 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. 

Management Unit 

Harcuvar 

Desired Future Condition 

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. 

Semi-primitive motorized settings with roadednatural settings along primary routes 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. 

Management Unit 

Peeples Valley 

Desired Future Condition 

BLM's lands in the Peeples Valley MU are 

generally 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 
Chapter 2 

246 

coordinated approach to achieving commonly 

established goals and objectives is used. 

Management Unit 

Upper Agua Fria River Basin 

Desired Future Condition 

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. 

A citizen, agency, and Government working 

exists group to determine which nonpublic 

(private and State) lands within the MU have 

high-value biological, cultural, and scenic 

resources; open space; and access or recreation 

resources. 

Acquire lands and easements, or establish 

conservation agreements through the following: 

• exchange of private lands, 

• conservation agreements for high-value 

cultural, biological, and recreation lands, 

and 

• purchase of access agreements or rightsof-way. 

Communication facilities are collocated on 

existing powerlines or communication towers 

whenever possible to minimize obstructions to 

the viewshed. “Stealth” construction techniques 

are used, such as color and design, to blend in 

with the natural surroundings as much as 

possible. 

New utility rights-of-way, when needed, are 

constructed near roads and highways, or in less 

sensitive areas. 

2.7.3.2 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 

SRP would be required for groups over 50 

people. 

Repetitive or ongoing 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 that occur on 

a regular and repeated schedule) except 

for guided hunt and outfitter services. 

Organized groups conducting a one-time fund 

raising event would be allowed on a case-bycase basis when consistent with wilderness 

management objectives. Commercial recreation 

and vending operations will 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. 

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, including, but not limited to the 

following: 

• water supplementation, 

• collar retrieval, 

• capture and release of wildlife, and 

• maintaining, repairing, rebuilding, or 

building wildlife waters, when such 

motorized and mechanized equipment is 

determined to be the minimum tool 

needed to do the job. 
Chapter 2 

247 

These types of activities will be evaluated on a 

case-by-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. 

2.7.3.3 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 

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
Chapter 2 

248 

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. 

2.7.3.4 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. 

2.7.3.5 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. 

Coordinate vegetation salvage with the State of 

Arizona, and to the extent practicable, open it to 

the public. 

2.7.3.6 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 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,
Chapter 2 

249 

 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 PFO'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 

Protection of 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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

250 

Close 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 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 

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. 
Chapter 2 

251 

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." 

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. 
Chapter 2 

252 

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. 

2.7.3.7 Recreation Resources 

The DFC and management actions that follow 

will apply to all public lands, including those 

within MUs in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

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. 

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 or enhance wilderness characteristics, 

and other management prescriptions. 
Chapter 2 

253 

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. 

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 

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, 

designated sites, 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 2.7.3.2 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 
Chapter 2 

254 

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 

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 
Chapter 2 

255 

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. 

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 with 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 

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 whether they conform to land 

use plans, activity plans, and resource 

management objectives. The proposed 

concession 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 
Chapter 2 

256 

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 the 

following: 

• 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. 

Recreational Target Shooting 

Recreational target shooting has increased in 

popularity on BLM 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 
Chapter 2 

257 

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 

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 

Field Office 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. 
Chapter 2 

258 

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. 

• 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 
Chapter 2 

259 

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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

260 

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: 

• 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). 

2.7.3.8 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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. 

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, 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 

261 

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 vehicle routes 

selected by BLM through inventory. 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 across country, the route 

is closed until the roadway can once again 

support a vehicle without damage. 

A structured evaluation process would be 

applied to develop a designated travel and 

transportation system for all routes within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. A 

description of the current BLM Arizona standard 

process used to evaluate and designate routes 

can be found in Appendix D. 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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

262 

General long-distance travel corridors for OHV 

travel between field offices and other adjoining 

lands would be designated. 

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 

would 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. 

Permits would be authorized ensuring 

compliance with Federal, State, county, and 

local regulations for air quality and noise. 

Administrative Actions 

Coordinate route designation with adjoining 

field offices and land management agencies. 

Establish relationships and enter into agreements 

with local OHV groups and the business 

community for long-term route maintenance and 

community support. 

Motorized Technical Vehicle Activities 

Desired Future Condition

Certain types of motorized activities, such as 

rock crawling and motorcycle observed trails, 

require extreme terrain features and are not 

conducive to general motorized use by 

traditional stock 4-WD vehicles. These sites 

would not be evaluated and established during 

motorized route designation for the travel and 

transportation system; however, access to these 

sites would be evaluated during the 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. Motorized users 

would be informed of the required equipment 

and skills necessary to utilize these sites through 

the development of signing, information sheets, 

and outreach programs. 

Administrative Actions 

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: 
Chapter 2 

263 

• 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 

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

Non-motorized activities that 

require SRPs would be limited to existing trails, 

which for these purposes do not 

include livestock and game trails. 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 

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. 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. 

Develop comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management Plans for the 

management units. These plans would 

implement the route designations for the area. 

2.7.3.9 Visual Resource 

Management 

Manage visual resources to minimize the visual 

intrusion of any authorized activity. Apply 

VRM class standards consistent with other 

resource objectives. 
Chapter 2 

264 

If possible, avoid placing strobes and other 

lights that will affect the quality of night skies. 

2.7.3.10 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. 

2.7.3.11 Mineral Resource 

Management 

Should the mineral estate under lands now 

closed to mineral entry be opened to mineral 

entry, manage those lands, including mineral 

estate, 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: 

• Where 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. 

• 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. 

2.7.3.12 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 to the 

provisions of the Lake Pleasant Herd 

Management Plan and at 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 they 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 

would not be managed as a HMA. Burros 

would be removed from the herd area as funding 

is available with the target of reaching a 

population of zero. 
Chapter 2 

265 

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 the development workshops. 

However, BLM determined these management 

options should not be included in an 

Alternative. The elements are described along 

with the reasoning for excluding them from 

further consideration. 

Designated 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 under the discussion of Recreational 

Target Shooting. 

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 the planning area. Most 

areas with existing heavy OHV use is 

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 

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, these areas would be reflected as such 

in the current category mapping. 

Establish User Fees for Agua Fria National 

Monument 

BLM believes that, as much as possible, the 

public should have access to public lands, 

including national monuments, without paying 

fees. The expected level of improvements and 

visitor facilities should not require extensive 

additional staffing, and fees should not be 

required to manage the monument's resources at 

this time. 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 

As noted for the monument, BLM believes that 

fees should be avoided whenever possible. The 

collaborative planning process used for this 
Chapter 2 

266 

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 Management 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 would be used in a 

vegetation treatment program. BLM's policies 

and guidance for public land treatments would 

be followed in implementing all treatment 

methods. Many 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: 

• 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 
Chapter 2 

267 

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 damages 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 

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 
Chapter 2 

268 

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, 

• 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 are not truly biological 

agents but are livestock used to control only the 
Chapter 2 

269 

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 this 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, requires 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. 

• 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. 
Chapter 2 

270 

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 

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, 
Chapter 2 

271 

• 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. 

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. 
Chapter 2 

272 

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 

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 STAMDARD 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 a determination that the 

proposal is in conformance with our existing 

plans. 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, a 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, 

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

is initiated. 

AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Special Recreation Permits 

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 
Chapter 2 

273 

objects and resources while maintaining desired 

social and managerial settings. 

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 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 management. 

• Consider opportunities to acquire nonFederal lands where lands are valuable 

for achieving BLM resource 

management objectives within the Aqua 

Fria National Monument. 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 land into consolidated 

geographical units. 

o consider 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 Aqua Fria National 

Monument 

Communication Sites 

Any future communication sites will be 

designated only within the boundaries of 

designated utility corridors within the 

monument. 

BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA PLANNING 

AREA 

Travel and Transportation Planning 

Plan, designate, and develop single- or multiple 

use off-highway and special recreation vehicle 

areas, loops, routes, and management strategies 

through interdisciplinary plans, with community 
Chapter 2 

274 

and user input. Planning 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 and determine 

suitability or if they will require action such as, 

closure, re-routing, rehabilitation, upgrading or 

authorization as an approved permitted course. 

Enact road, route, trail, or area closures or 

mitigation where off-highway vehicle or special 

vehicle use is determined to be inconsistent with 

established recreation management objectives, 

and/or such use is causing harm to natural or 

cultural 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 special recreation vehicle information to the 

public. 

Recreation 

Parking, Staging Areas, and Facilities 

Parking and staging areas will be allowed for 

visitors' needs to enhance recreation resources, 

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 would be 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, 

• 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. 
Chapter 2 

275 

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 the 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 the 

rural and natural settings, protecting visual 

resources. Multiple uses that are consistent with 

and support the overall community vision would 

continue. 

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. 

Exploration and development of all mineral 

resources will be conducted in accordance with 

all applicable laws and regulations. 
Chapter 2 

276 

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 insure 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 BLM 

administered lands are in full compliance with 

all Federal, State and local health, safety and 

environmental laws as required by 43 CFR 

3715.5. 

All occupancy of mining claims must meet the 

requirements of 43 CFR 3715 and 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 

a reasonable prospect of success in developing a 

valuable mine. 
Chapter 2 

277 

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. 

Monitor and maintain Harquahala herd at 

current population levels. 

Lands and Realty 

Land Tenure Adjustments 

• Consolidate land ownership to achieve 

management efficiency and reduced 

costs. 

o 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. 

o Consider the use of patent 

reservations and habitat 

management plans when 

conveying lands from Federal 

ownership 

o Consider and evaluate making 

public land available for 

disposal to local governments 

and non-profits under the 

Recreation & Public Purposes 

Act. 

o Obtain reasonable public and 

administrative access to BLM 

lands in the following ways: 

o Require reciprocal access 

easements to meet specific 

program needs. 

o 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. 

o Secure access easements as 

needed to prevent closing of 

access to public lands. 

o Consider and evaluate in land 

adjustment actions (including 

disposal, acquisition, sale, 

donation) the following: 

 Reduction of BLM 

administrative costs and 

improvement of 

management efficiency. 

 Identify for disposal 

relatively small, 

isolated, inaccessible 

tracts of BLM that do 

not meet resource 

management needs. 

 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 nonFederal lands by purchase or exchange 

(willing seller) where lands are valuable 

for achieving BLM resource 

management objectives. Evaluate the 

following: 

o key wildlife habitat, fisheries 

management areas and habitat 
Chapter 2 

278 

for threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species 

o designated wilderness and other 

special management areas 

o lands with historical or 

important heritage resources, 

outstanding scenic values, or 

critical ecosystems when these 

resources are threatened by 

change of use, or when 

management may be enhanced 

by public ownership 

o lands with water frontage, such 

as lakes, streams, flood plains, 

wetlands, and associated 

riparian ecosystems 

o land with important value for 

outdoor recreation purposes 

o land needed for visual resource 

protection 

o lands needed to bring existing 

BLM land into consolidated 

geographical units. 

o lands that will maintain or 

stabilize the economies of local 

government 

o lands where BLM programs will 

provide the best insurance 

against existing or potential uses 

that are incompatible with 

effective watershed 

management. 

o consider partial interest 

acquisitions, such as access, 

minerals, water rights or 

conservation easements to 

benefit public land 

management. 

o consider public/private land 

management and stewardship 

opportunities to assist in the 

management of BLM lands 

o consider disposal of Federal 

subsurface estate under nonFederal surface estate on a caseby-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 
Chapter 2 

279 

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. 

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’s PFO 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. In 
Chapter 2 

280 

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 

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. 

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 

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. 

Monitoring will be used to assess the 
Chapter 2 

281 

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 individual 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. 

Specifications of the ESA pertain to both the 

Agua Fria National Monument and the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

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. 

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 
Chapter 2 

282 

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 the 

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 

habitat 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: 

• decisions on land health standards and 

DFC, 

• land use allocation decisions, 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. 

Some commercial and organized group uses 

requiring SRPs have little to no resource 

impacts, user conflicts, or health and safety 

concerns, and require little monitoring. 

Examples of such uses are hunting outfitter and 

guide operations, motorized tours, photography 

tours, nature hikes, dual-sport rides, horseback 

rides, and organized club campouts. Special 
Chapter 2 

283 

stipulations for SRPs have been developed to 

protect natural resources, reduce user conflicts, 

and minimize health and safety risks. These 

stipulations are included with all authorized 

SRPs and must be followed to keep the permit 

valid. These stipulations may be found in 

Appendix K. 

No further environmental analysis for these 

permit applications will be needed under any of 

the following conditions. 

• These special stipulations are 

incorporated with the permit. 

• The proposed activities occur on 

designated vehicle routes. 

• The proposed activities are confined to 

existing disturbed areas where allowable 

use limits have been established or have 

been designated for such activities. 

• There are no expected public concerns 

or user conflicts. 

Final decisions for permit issuance may still be 

based on other valid concerns, including the 

following: 

• performance, 

• other conflicting activities such as hunt 

seasons, 

• BLM's ability to process the permit, and 

• other unforeseen circumstances. 

The permitted uses must also comply with any 

special MU allocations or restrictions. Proposed 

uses that do not meet the above criteria will be 

subject to further environmental analysis. 

2.10.2 Monitoring 

Monitoring of actions related to 

implementing land use plans is an important part 

of adaptive management. Tracking progress of 

actions and measuring changes resulting from 

these activities is important for determining 

success and the need for a different management 

approach. 

BLM's PFO 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. 

This RMP recognizes many monitoring 

needs that will require further effort to design 

and plan. The PFO invites citizens to help 

develop an effective monitoring and evaluation 

plan that lets citizens help monitor effects of 

implemented plan decisions on public land 

resources, local communities, and public land 

users. 

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 
Chapter 2 

284 

decisions and management actions described for 

the planning areas. 

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 as funding 

becomes available, would 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. In 

addition, BLM will ensure that the 

environmental review process includes 

evaluation of all critical elements; to include 

cultural resources and threatened and 

endangered species; and completes 

required USFWS, Section 7, consultations and 

coordination with the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) in accordance with the BLM 

Cultural Resources 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's PFO conducts many activities that 

require coordination between BLM, 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 sitespecific activities. 

As a part of this planning effort and in 

implementing on-the-ground activities, BLM 

conducts ESA, Section 7 consultation with the 

USFWS. In 2003, BLM and USFWS finalized a 

consultation agreement to establish an effective 

and cooperative ESA, Section 7, consultation 

process. The agreement defines the process, 

products, actions, schedule, and expectations 

of BLM and USFWS on project consultation. 

One Biological Assessment (BA) will be 

prepared to determine the effect of the preferred 

Alternative on all relevant listed, proposed, and 

candidate species, and associated critical 

habitat. The BA will expose all expected 

environmental effects, conservation actions, 

mitigation, and monitoring, including analysis of 

all direct and indirect effects of plan decisions 

and any interrelated and interdependent actions. 

As this plan's decisions are implemented, 

actions determined through environmental 

analysis to potentially affect species listed or 

candidate species for listing under ESA will 

initiate more site-specific consultation on those 

actions. 

Consultation with the Arizona SHPO is also 

conducted, in compliance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

BLM actions will also comply with other 

Federal environmental legislation, existing 

programmatic environmental analyses, land use 

plans, and vegetation treatment documents, such 

as the Clear Air Act (CAA), the CWA, and the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and 

with State and local government regulations 
Chapter 2 

285 

(Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policies, and 

Planning can be seen in Appendix C). 

The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) authorizes 

the Department of the Interior (DOI), in 

cooperation with State agencies responsible for 

administering fish and game laws, to plan, 

develop, maintain, and coordinate programs 

for conserving and rehabilitating wildlife, fish, 

and game on public lands within its jurisdiction. 

The plans must conform to overall land use and 

management plans for the lands involved. The 

plans could include habitat improvement 

projects and related activities and adequate 

protection for species of fish, wildlife, and plants 

considered endangered or threatened. BLM 

must also coordinate with suitable State agencies 

in managing State-listed plant and animal 

species when the State has formally made such 

designations. The PFO 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 plans shortly after the 

records of decision are signed. 

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible 

for management of wildlife habitats on public 

lands, while the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department is responsible for managing wildlife 

populations and game harvest. Proclamation 

7263, creating Agua Fria National Monument 

(Appendix A), states, "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 this regard, the State agency responsible for 

fish and wildlife management is the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department (AGFD). Continued 

efforts would be made to coordinate with AGFD 

for opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat, 

species diversity, and riparian health. 

Coordination occurs between the agencies on 

management plans and activities to achieve the 

optimum health of wildlife species and 

populations. Currently, coordination efforts are 

conducted consistent with a statewide 

Memorandum of Understanding between the 

agencies. In addition, a Memorandum of 

Understanding has been signed giving Arizona 

Game and Fish Department cooperating agency 

status on Resource Management Plan efforts 

now being conducted in Arizona. To further 

promote interagency coordination, a Cooperative 

Agreement was signed between the agencies, 

establishing a liaison position in the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. This liaison is 

assigned coordination responsibility on all 

ongoing land use plans and spends a portion of 

their work schedule in the Arizona State Office. 

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 

environmental impact analysis. In that process, 

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 crossings to ensure long term species 

viability and maintaining habitat connectivity. 

Where planned roadways potentially fragment 

other resources, such as (but not limited to) 

recreation routes or trails, grazing allotments, or 

mining operations, 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.
286 

Table 2-8. Summary Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.6 Impacts to Special Area Designations 

4.6.1 Fr Management of Special Area Designations 

No impacts are expected. Increased visitation along 

Bloody Basin Rd Bck Ctry Byways could lead to potential degradation of eligible WSR values. Similar effects could occur in Hassayampa River Wilderness from Constellation Mine Road Backcountry Byway. 

-Impacts are expected to be similar to Alt B. No impact is expected from add’l WSR evals or from ACECs. -Harquahala Mountain ACEC would reduce effects of vehicles on the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaC. 

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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative 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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

4.6.4 From Biological Resource Management 

Management could enhance eligible WSR segments, wilderness areas (WAs), and ACECs. 

-Elimination of Larry Canyon ACEC would have no effect.- Management of Harquahala Mountain WHA would enhance values in Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. 

-Management of pronghorn WHAs could enhance eligible WSR segments. Controls on vehicle routes and recreational development would help maintain 

Effects of managemfor wildlife in the monument would be same as in Alternatiexcept more ACECwould be created. 
287 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

-New wildlife waters may slightly reduce naturalness in wilderness areas. 

biological resources. -Management of the Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn wildlife corridor/ the Belmont/Big Horn WHA would enhance values in WAs. 

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 are expected to be similar to those described for Alt B, except the Badger Springs petroglyph site would have fewer facilities/create fewer impacts. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to those described for Alt B, except the Wickenburg/VulturSCRMA no public uthus reducing impacthis area. 

4.6.6 Fr Paleonto Res Mgnt No impacts expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte4.6.7 From Recreation Management 

Increased visitation is expected to increase motorized use in eligible WSR segments and wilderness areas. This could progressively degrade values of these areas. Impacts to ACECs are not expected. 

-Bck Ctry alloc should protect values along elig WSR segments.-Frnt Ctry/developed cmpgrnds could incrse motorized visits/area of people to elig WSR segment, degrading values. -Hieroglyphic Mtn SRMA could diminish solitude. Incrsed veh use could incrse fugitive dust entering Hells Cnyon Wilderness, obscuring vistas. 

Impacts in the monument are the same as for Alternative B. Impacts on Hells Canyon Wilderness from the Hieroglyphic Mountains SRMA would be similar to those described for Alternative B. 

Impacts in the monuare the same as for Alternative B. The phase-out of motorized activity in Hieroglyphic Mounwould enhance solitnaturalness, and visexperience. 
288 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.6.8 From Visual Resource Management 

In the monument 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 eligible WSR segments. Other special area designations are not expected to be affected by VRM management. 

Impacts in the monument would be similar to Alternative 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 wobe similar to Alt C. - Managing the Harquahala MountaACEC to Class I womaintain the appearof naturalness acroslarge landscape. -Managing the Sheep Mountain RNA ACand the Black Butte ONA ACEC to Claswill retain the natursettings of those are

4.6.9 From Rangeland Management 

Applying land health standards should maintain or improve habitat characteristics. No impacts to wilderness areas, ACECs, or back country byways are expected. 

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 the WSR corridor/the riparian corridor in the Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness would improve. 

Impacts to the riparian corridors would be similar to those described for Alternative B, except that the year-round restriction of grazing should further improve and enhance the wildlife and scenic values. 

Impacts similar to thdescribed for AlternC. 

4.6.10 From Minerals Management 

-No impacts are expected in 

the monument. -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 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, closing Tule Creek ACEC to all mineral development would benefit the resources that are important to ACEC designation. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except areas allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics be closed, thereby reducing the potential area for ground disturbance and maintaining the primitive open space. 

Impacts from managTule Creek ACEC wbe similar to those described for AlternB, except that closinmore area would be closed to mining. 
289 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

development. 

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 monument should lead to increased ecosystem health. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative 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 Alternative B. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B. 

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 Alternative 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 Alternative C. 
290 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.6.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

-No impacts are expected on existing ACECs, the five wilderness areas, or the Harquahala Mountain Summit Road Back. -Country Byway. Veh rtes and developments are currently 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 the same as for Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B. 

Would enhance nonmotorized recreasettings and opportuwithin the Hells Canwilderness. Impacts on suitable segments would be same as for AlternatA. 

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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

4.7 Impacts on Lands and Realty Management 
291 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.7.1 From Management of Special Area Designations 

Wilderness areas would remain closed to rights-ofway 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 AgFria Riparian CorridACEC would constrthe location of rightway in the Black Cacorridor. -The impafrom Tule Creek anHarquahala MountaONA would be the as Alt B. - No new rights-of-way would permitted in the BalMtn ONA. Pvt intercould have to use a circuitous and expenroute.-The effects oWAs would be the sas Alt A. 
292 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.7.2 From Lands and Realty Management 

In the monument, land ownership would not change. No new or widened transportation corridors would be designated, though BLM might permit new rights-ofway. - 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-by-case basis. 

-Impacts in the monument 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 mngemnt 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 proliferation of major utility sys across public lands. 

-BLM would issue no leases or patents for land within the monument to local govts or non-profit organizations under the R&PP Act. -Rights-of-way and communication sites would be similar to Alternative B, except the existing corridor would be eliminated from the monument. -Land acquisition would be similar to Alternative B, except that the lands would be consolidated into six MUs 

-Impacts of new rigof-way would be simto Alternative B, exthat the corridor in Bradshaw-Harquahawould be extended, widened. -Land acquisition would bsimilar to similar to Alternative B, exceplands would be consolidated into seMUs. -Land use authorizawould be similar to Alternative B, excepno new electric or gcorridors would be designated. 

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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative 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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative 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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 
293 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

4.7.7 From Recreation Management 

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte

4.7.8 From Visual Resource Management 

Modification of rights-ofway to achieve VRM objectives could lead to increased costs. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

4.7.9 From Rangeland Management 

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte

4.7.10 From Minerals Management 

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte

4.7.11 From Fire Management 

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte

4.7.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte

4.7.13 From Management of Trans and Public Access 

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte

4.7.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts expected. Allocations to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics would be closed to rights-of-way and inconsistent land use authorizations. Future utilities and private requestors would find other routes through these areas. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts similar to Alternative 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 would be protected from increased erosion and decreased soil moisture/productivity by 

Impacts would be similar toAlternative A for eligible WSR segments. -In Bradshaw-Harquahala closing the fenced area of the Tule Creek ACEC to 

In the monument, impacts would be similar to Alternative A for eligible WSR corridors. -In BradshawHarquahala 8 ACECs, 

Impacts in the monuwould be similar to Alternative C. -In BradshawHarquahala 10 ACEtotaling 314,580 acr
294 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

limiting motor vehicle use. -Existing designated Wilderness would be managed to maintain soil productivity. 

motorized vehicles and grazing could reduce soil disturbance and compaction. 

totaling 55,710 acres, would reduce soil erosion and improve soil moisture and productivity. 

would have impacts similar to those undAlternative C. 

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/communications rights-of-way. 

In the monument, no impacts are expected from land tenure adjustments or from utility and transportation corridors or communication sites. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B. 

4.8.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 

-In the monument, soil resources are expected to improve through measures to reduce loss/improve productivity. -No impacts expected in the BradshawHarquahala. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative 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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

4.8.5 From Cultural Resource Management 

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte

4.8.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte

4.8.7 From Recreation Management 

In the monument, current recreation management practices could cause localized soil loss and 

Impacts might occur in the Frnt Ctry and Passage RMZ as rec use incrses. -In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 

Impacts in the monument would be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts in monumewould be similar to C, though more area would be allocated t
295 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 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. 

vehicle route designations and closures in Tule Creek ACEC and allocations to maintain or enhance 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. 

In Bradshaw-Harquahala impacts would be similar to Alternative 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 Bradshaw-Harquahala. 

Back County RMZ. -Impacts would be reduced in the southportion of the castle Springs MU by phaout motorized uses. -Eliminating recreatvehicle use in designMUs would reduce erosion. -Increased BLM sigOHV route developand connectivity, pueducation, and bettemanaged motorized non-motorized recrein SRMAs would leimpacts to soils ovelong term. 

4.8.8 Fr Vis Res Mgnt No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte4.8.9 From Rangeland Management 

Implementing guidelines adopted in Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration would improve soil conditions. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except grazing would be limited in riparian areas to the winter. This would encourage more rapid recovery of riparian vegetation and reduce impacts to soils from grazing. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except grazing in riparian areas would be eliminated, increasing soil cover and reducing streambank damage. 

Cessation of grazing throughout the plannarea would give the greatest benefit to soof any alternative. 

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. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A, except that fire use would be allowed in adapted ecosystems. When lightning fires occur, larger wildfires could be allowed, resulting in short term increases in soil loss. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B. 
296 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

-Prescribed burning would reduce soil erosion. -Full suppression in fire adapted communities could cause herbaceous cover to decline with related soil effects. 

4.8.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

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 monument, impacts might occur in the Frnt Ctry and Passage Zones. The net reduction of 33 route mi. would likely reduce these effects. -In Bradshaw-Harquahala route closures in Tule Creek ACEC and allocations to maintain or enhance wilderness charac would slightly reduce soil disturbance, erosion, and compaction by OHV use. 

-Impacts in the monument would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B, except the net reduction of 44 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 monument would be similar to Alternativexcept would providmost protection due route closures. -Restricting vehicle to designated routes would further reducimpacts in all other of the planning area

4.8.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts expected. 56,040 acres would be alloc

for wilderness charact. Soil disturbances, compaction, and erosion caused by human induced activities would be reduced. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alt B except that 107,510 acres would be alloc. Soil disturbance would be reduced the most in this Alt. 

Impacts would be sito Alt B except that 91,480 acres would allocated. This wouprovide more protecthan Alt B, but less Alts C and E. 

4.9 Impacts on Air Quality 

4.9.1 From Management of Special Area Designations 

-Restrictions resulting from special area designations are likely to increase emissions because of population growth and increases in OHV use. -In Bradshaw-Harquahala, BLM would continue to 

Recreation prescription 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 

-Designation of Bk Ctry byways could attract more regional OHV users. This is not expected to increase regional OHV use or regional fugitive dust emissions. 

-The relative shift in quality impacts betwnewly restricted areand the remaining accessible areas wougreatest. -Air quality effects fugitive dust emissio
297 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

prohibit OHV use in five wilderness areas (96,820 acres) and encourage OHV use on one back country byway (Harquahala Mountain Summit Road). 

impacts in the new restricted areas and (2) increased temporary and localized, degraded air quality in the remaining OHV areas. 

-In BradshawHarquahala, 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. 

from vehicular traveOHV use would be curtailed by eliminaor mitigating recreavehicle use in the ShMountain RNA. 

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 would ensure that impacts would be temporary and limited to the immediate area of the construction. -Ongoing maintenance and improvement of facilities and roadways would require use of construction equipment. This would generate fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. 

-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 Alternative A. 

-In the monument, 

elimination of Black Canyon utility corridor would maintain current emissions. Impacts from ongoing maintenance would be similar to Alternative A. -In BradshawHarquahala impacts would be the same as Alternative B. -Any construction in non-attainment areas would be subject to comply with county air quality rules. 

Impacts in the monuwould be similar to described for AlternC. The portion of the BCanyon Multi-Use corridor would be extended. If utilitieelect to use this corrin the future, they wgenerate criteria pollutants and fugitidust through earthmoving and the of heavy equipment
298 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

4.9.4 From Biological Resource Management 

In the monument, measures to protect biological resources, including the use of prescribed fire may result in small amounts of temporary, localized emissions. -In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 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 Alternative 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 routefragment pronghorn habitat and cross knmovement corridors would be closed, limor mitigated. The shift in impacts between newly restrareas and the remainareas would be greaunder Alternative D

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 pollutants and fugitive dust. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B except to a lesser degree due to less High Public Use designations. 

-In the monument, impacts from vehicltraffic would be limto Bloody Basin Roand the Pueblo la Plarea. Levels of airbopollutants would be lower than under Alor C. -In BradshawHarquahala, impactgenerated by site visits would be than Alts B and C. 

4.9.6 Fr Paleont Res Mgt No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte
299 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 cross-country, OHV use in the monument would reduce levels of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust. In BradshawHarquahala OHV travel would generate increased emissions of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust.

-Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative 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. 

-In the monument impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except that more vehicle routes would be closed or limited to motorized vehicles. -In BradshawHarquahala, impacts would be similar to Alternative 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 are expectbe similar to Alt C ethat: The relative shimpacts between nerestricted areas and remaining areas wougreatest because of restrictions on the mland. -In the monument, Bwould issue no SRPThis would lead to a decrease in emissioncriteria pollutants. -Closing more routewould improve air quality and lessen demissions. -Impacts of SRMAs would be similar to Alternative C. 

4.9.8 From Visual Resource Management 

No impacts expected. Restrictions to development 

may slightly reduce dust emissions. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B. 

4.9.9 From Rangeland Management 

May have increased 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 Alternative A, except winter season use of riparian areas would lead to increased vegetation densities in those areas, 

potentially slightly reducing 

localized windblown dust. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except closure of riparian areas to livestock grazing year round would lead to higher vegetation densities and more rapid growth than Alternative B. 

Cessation of grazing would result in overincreases in ground cover, reducing windblown dust emissions more than other alternative. 
300 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.9.10 From Minerals Management 

-No impact is expected on the monument.  -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 Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Alternative D would reduce the amount oland open mining mthan other alternativThis action would reemissions of criteria pollutants and fugitidust. 

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. Impacts are minimized. -The use of heavy equipment and the mechanical thinning of trees would generate emissions of criteria pollutants as well as fugitive dust. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative 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 Alternative A. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative B. 

4.9.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expected. No impacts expecte

4.9.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

-Prohibiting cross-country OHV use in the monument 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 

-In the monument, 140 miles of route would be left open and 33 net miles of route would be closed. Route closures could impacts. -In Bradshaw-Harquahala routes would be reduced by 82 miles. Route closures would concentrate more 

-In the monument, impacts would be similar to Alt B, except that more vehicle routes would be closed or limited to motorized vehicles (44 miles). -In BradshawHarquahala, impacts of 

-In the monument, negative impacts wobe the least due to thhighest amount of roclosures over other (122 miles). -In BradshawHarquahala 1,108 mof routes would be closed. The route 
301 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

opening of new routes would increase fugitive dust during construction as well as increase emissions created by vehicles once the route is opened. 

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. 

OHV use would be similar to Alternative B except BLM would designate seven ACECs, further shifting OHV use and possible air quality impacts. 

closures would reduopportunities for air quality emissions anfugitive dust.

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 in newly restricted sites and increased impacts in other areas. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except that more area would be allocated to the management of wilderness characteristics (107,510 acres). 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaC, except that more would be allocated tmanagement of wilderness characte(91,480 acres). 

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 degrad of water quality. -Eligible WSR seg would continue to be managed for nonimpairment to WSR values. -In Bradshaw-Harquahala mgment of wilderness areas would improve hydrologic function. 

Impacts in the monument would be similar to Alt A.  -In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 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 monument will close the areas to grazing/veh. 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 monuwould be similar to described for Alt A. -In BradshawHarquahala impacts would be similar to Alternative C, but Alternative D would close more areas to mineral entry. 
302 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.10.2 From Lands and Realty Management 

-Water quality could be affected by construction/ maintenance of facilities authorized under right-ofway.  -Impacts from land disposal of 54,370 acres include the potential loss of vegetation from development/possible increased erosion and sediment yield.  -Acquiring larger blocks of BLM managed land could improve vegetation conditions/reduce stream sedimentation. 

-In the monument, 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 Alternative A. 

-Impacts of rights-of-way are similar to Alternative A. Eliminating the Black Canyon utility corridor would prohibit more utility right-of-way allocations. -The impacts of disposing of 49,100 acres of BLM lands would be similar to Alternative B. -Utility corridors and communication sites would have impacts similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts in the monuwould be the same Alternative C. The impacts on watresources from acquprivate or State landwould be similar to described for AlternB. Utility corridors and communication sitewould have impacts similar to Alternativ

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. 

Alternative B would 

provide more protection for 

water resources than Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B, but more protection of water resources. 

Would provide the mprotection of water resources. 

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 are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.10.5 Fr Cult’l Res Mgnt No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe4.10.6 Fr Paleont ResMgnt No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe4.10.7 From Recreation Management 

-Areas disturbed by concentrated recreation use 

In Front Country and Passage RMZs in the 

In the monument, impacts would be similar 

In the monument, impacts would be si
303 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

would continue to contribute to stream sediments and turbidity.  -Cross-country OHV use could increase soil erosion, sediment yield, damage to banks of drainages, and sediment deposition.  -In Bradshaw-Harquahala, impacts are expected from the increased water use by visitors and the proliferation of unplanned and unmanaged recreational trails and facilities. 

monument, OHV use would degrade water resources. In Bradshaw-Harquahala allocating eight SRMAs and two areas to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics for management of recreation use could reduce soil erosion and sediment yield into drainages. 

to Alternative B, except the Front Country RMZ would be reduced and the Passage RMZ would be reduced. Impacts under Alternative C are expected to be similar to those described for Alternative B, but to a lesser degree. 

to Alternative C, exthe Front Country Rwould be reduced anPassage RMZ woulincreased. In Bradshaw-Harquimpacts are expectebe similar to those described for AlternC, but to a lesser de

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 are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

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 Bradshaw- Harquahala 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 Alternative 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, further reducing grazing impacts to water resources. 

Alternative D would cause the greatest improvement for waresources and riparizone vegetation. 
304 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.10.10 From Minerals Management 

-No impacts are expected impact in the monument. -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 monument. In Bradshaw-Harquahala Impacts would be similar to those discussed in Alternative A. 

No impacts are expected in the monument. In Bradshaw-Harquahala impacts would be substantially lower than Alternative B because more land would be removed from mineral development. 

-No impacts are impexpected in the monument.  -Impacts In BradshHarquahala would blowest under this Alternative since thmost amount of land would be removed fmineral developmen

4.10.11 From Fire Management 

-Prescribed fire would temporarily result in increased surface water turbidity and sedimentation. Vegetative composition will 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 those described in Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

4.10.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

-No impacts are expected to monum. In BradshawHarquahala, maintaining AMLs in the Lake Pleasant HMA and removing burros in the Harquahala HA, would allow heavily used areas to recover/min impacts to water quality/ hydrologic function. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 
305 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.10.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

-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 monument 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 Bradshaw-Harquahala, maintaining a diverse network of motorized vehicle routes would harden some areas. 

Impacts 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. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to those described for AlternC, but to a significalesser degree due to greater net closure omotorized travel rou

4.10.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts are expected In the monument, 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 Alternative B, except that a larger area would be allocated for management of wilderness characteristics (107,510 acres). 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB except that 91,480 acres would be allocfor management of wilderness characteristics. 

4.11 Impacts on Biological Resources 
306 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.11.1 From Management of Special Area Designations 

Managing WSR eligible segments will 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 monument, management of WSR segments would have impacts similar to Alternative A. -Within BradshawHarquahala, Tule Creek ACEC would improve Gila topminnow and riparian habitat, as well as desert tortoise habitat. Closing the stream channel to vehicle use and grazing and withdrawing this area from mineral entry would limit habitat damage from mining equipment. -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 monument, ACECs would have no new impacts to wildlife.  -In Bradshaw-Harquahala, management of seven ACECs will increase bighorn sheep forage; protect unique vegetation communities; reduce habitat fragmentation; protect spring sources; protect riparian areas; protect high value desert tortoise habitat; and protect important raptor nesting sites.  -The designation of these 10 ACECs 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. 

In the monument, impacts would be sito Alternative C. Within the BradshawHarquahala, the eighACECs will have impacts similar to thdescribed in AlternaC, but over a larger The designation of tnine ACECs would additional protection 66,940 acres of CateI desert tortoise hab167,710 acres of Category II habitat a6,000 acres of CategIII habitat as well as emphasize protectio49.5 miles of ripariahabitat. 

4.11.2 From Lands and Realty Management 

In the monument, existing utility right-of-ways could temporarily disturb vegetation for wildlife habitat, and provide sites for invasive species encroachment.  -In Bradshaw-Harquahala, acquisition of lands to 

In the monument, narrowing the utility corridor would reduce the likelihood of impacting wildlife habitats. -In the BradshawHarquahala, disposal of 53,143 acres would reduce wildlife habitat, including 

In the monument, eliminating the utility corridor would reduce the potential for the impacts described in Alternative A.  -In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts from acquisition would be similar to Alternative B. 

-In the monument, impacts are the samin Alt C. -In BradshawHarquahala, buildinmaintaining facilitietransportation and ucorridors and at communication site
307 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

consolidate BLM management would improve wildlife habitats.  -Increased corridors, along with more 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 Category I, II, and III tortoise habitat. 

10,709 acres of desert tortoise habitat. -Acquisition of lands would help consolidate blocks of BLM land and 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 alternative A, except the Black Canyon Corridor would be widened 1 mile to the west. No impacts are expected within the life of the plan. 

Disposal of 49,100 acres of BLM land would also have similar impacts to Alternative B. -Transportation and utility corridors would have similar impacts as described for Alternative A, except the Black Canyon Corridor would be widened 2 miles to the west. 

would have impacts similar to Alternativ-The Black Canyon would be expanded south. This may incthe possibility of hapower line towers impacting sensitive resources. Impacts from acquirprivate or state landwould be similar to in Alternative 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 are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar Alternative A. 

4.11.4 From Biological Resource Management 

In the monument, proposed landscape improvements would improve riparian habitats. Continued stocking of native fish would increase the overall viability of sensitive native species. 

Implementation of the Land Health Standards would make progress toward achieving desired plant communities, and reducing invasive species. Habitat needs of special status species would be a high priority. 

-Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except:  -In the monument, management of the WHA for pronghorn would limit or mitigate vehicular access, prohibit developing new recreational facilities, require all fences to meet -

-Impacts to biologicresources would be similar to Alternativexcept: -In the monument, impacts of the ProngWHA would be simto Alternative C, exthat the removal of fences in the absenc
308 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

-Modification of livestock fencing would improve pronghorn movement. -In the BradshawHarquahala, protection measures on specific stream reaches would improve wildlife habitat along them. -With Arizona Game and Fish, acquisition of water rights could reduce competition for water and ensure legal availability and 

maintenance of flows.-Use of native species for restoration of degraded rangelands would reestablish native plant communities and improve wildlife habitat.-Protection of significant cliffs for nesting raptors would improve nesting conditions for sensitive raptor species. In the vicinity of these cliffs, limits to use by burros and restrictions on rights-of-way would protect the foraging habitat of the same birds. -Protection of the bighorn lambing areas in the Harquahala Mountains would increase forage and reproductive success in sheep populations. 

-Reintroduction, transplanting, and supplemental stocking of wildlife would contribute to conservation and recovery of T&E species.  -Implementing desert tortoise management standards would protect tortoise populations and habitat. -DFC objectives would protect and conserve 

priority habitats and species 

contribute to recovery of T&E 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 by desert bighorn sheep habitat will reduce the likelihood of disease transmission. -Guidance on exotic species management would emphasize the restoration and maintenance of native species. 

BLM standards, and emphasize management of wildlife habitats. Prescribed burns would improve pronghorn forage and reduce invasive species.  -The management of Belmont-Big Horn Mountains and the Date Creek Mountains WHAs would improve species distribution and maintain genetic diversity. They would also 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 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.

livestock grazing wgreatly reduce habitfragmentation.- Impacts of managemfor the Date Creek Wwould be similar to described in AlternaC, except that it woufuther reduce habitafragmentation and ltortoise habitat. -Imof management for Upper Agua Fria RiBasin WHA would similar to those descfor Alternative C; exthey would be applia larger area and remof all fences in the absence of livestock grazing would furthfacilitate big game movement.-The designation of the WHAs would adadditional protection 2,850 acres of CategII habitat and 3,630 of Category III habiwell as 5 miles of riparian habitat by emphasizing wildlifhabitat management these areas. 
309 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.11.5 From Cultural Resource Management 

Management actions for cultural resources that 

prohibit surface disturbance 

near known archaeological sites would protect vegetation and wildlife habitat in those areas. 

In the monument, development of High public use at four sites could degrade biological resources. Development of four Moderate public use areas would have fewer impacts. No impact is expected from Low public use sites.-In BradshawHarquahala, 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. 

In the monument, impacts of two High public use areas would be similar to those described for Alternative B, but to a lesser degree. Impacts of developing eight Moderate public use sites would be similar to those described in Alternative B, but on more sites. Overall, impacts are expected to be lower than in Alternative B.-Impacts in Bradshaw-Harquahala are expected to be similar to Alternative B, but in fewer locations. 

In the monument, impacts from develothe two Moderate puuse sites described wbe similar to those described for AlternB, but at fewer sitesIn the BradshawHarquahala, impactpublic use developmwould be similar to described in AlternaB, but in fewer locathan Alternative C. 

4.11.6 Fr Paleont Res Mgnt No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe4.11.7 From Recreation Management 

In the monument, recreation uses would be allowed if they are consistent with the proclamation. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 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 

In the monument, 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 BradshawHarquahala, seasonally restricting motorized events in Category I and II desert 

In the monument, impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except impacts of visitor use in Front Country would affect 42,410 acres and 70 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 Alternative B, but the zone would increase to 28,420 acres. 

In the monument, impacts to biologicaresources would be similar to Alternativexcept impacts in FrCountry would affeonly 1,530 acres and acres of Passage ZoThe Back Country wbe expanded to inclu68,380 acres. Impacts from allocaPassage zone would similar to Alternativexcept that the zone would consist of 99
310 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

areas would continue to be unplanned and may conflict with sensitive biological resources, priority species, or priority habitats. 

tortoise habitat would avoid 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 allocating a Passage zone would be similar to Alternative B, except that the zone would occupy just 70 acres. Impacts of staging areas and route designation would be reduced from Alternative B. 

acres. In Bradshaw-Harquimpacts from OHV staging areas and rodesignations would reduced from AlternC. Shifting use in the Hieroglyphics SRMfrom motorized to nmotorized would rehabitat fragmentatiowell as disturbance displacement of wil

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 VRM Class I. 

Impacts to 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 437,579 acres. 

Impacts to would be similar to those under Alternative B, except that the area in VRM Class I would increase to 100,456 acres and the area in VRM Class II would increase to 449,022 acres. 

Impacts to would be similar to those undAlternative B, excepthe area in VRM Clwould decrease to 298,309 acres and tharea in VRM Class would decrease to 340,877 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 species. Implementing would prioritize the habitat needs of special status species where wildlife and other land use conflict. Implementing changes in 

Impacts of Land Health Standards are the same as in Alternative A. Applying the Special Ephemeral rule could result in the increase of native grass production, shrub and tree cover, and habitat complexity. Retirement of allotments could increase plant 

Impacts are expected to be similar to those described for Alternative B, except: Impacts of closing riparian areas to grazing would occur quicker and could be more pronounced. A seasonal grazing closure in the Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC during bighorn lambing 

The affects of remoall livestock from felands in both planniareas would be simithose described for riparian and upland under Alternative CHowever, Alternativwould affect a much larger area. Eliminating all rangimprovements that s
311 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. Congregations also attract cowbirds, which are nest parasites to other birds, including the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. 

diversity and habitat complexity. In the monument, limiting riparian areas to winter use would increase the diversity and abundance of plant species and the complexity of the wildlife habitat. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, implementing riparian management would have similar impacts to riparian habitats but more slowly and less consistently. 

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 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. 

no purpose in the absence of livestock grazing would remomany fences and cothat hinder natural movement of prongmule deer, and bighsheep. 

4.11.10 From Minerals Management 

In the monument, no impacts are expected. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, minerals actions would be evaluated on a case-by-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. 

Impacts within the monument would be the same as Alternative A. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, closing areas to mineral extraction will protect them from disturbance and will protect the wildlife that depend on those areas. Riparian areas would especially benefit. Opening reconvened lands to mining could degrade 

Impacts within the monument would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts of closing areas to mineral extraction would be similar to those described in Alternative B. Opening reconvened lands to mining could degrade desert tortoise habitats and habitats for priority species, but in this alternative, riparian habitats would be 

Impacts within the monument would be same as Alternative Impacts of closing ato mineral would be similar to those descin Alternative B. 
312 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

riparian and areas and habitats for priority species.

protected. 

4.11.11 From Fire Management 

In the monument, 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 Bradshaw-Harquahala, 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 Alternative 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 the same as described in Alternative A.

Impacts are similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are similar Alternative B. 

4.11.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts are expected in 

the monument. In Harquahala HA, continued degradation of sensitive habitats and increased competition with wildlife for scarce 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts in the monument and the Lake Pleasant area are the similar to Alternative A. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, eliminating the burro population in the 

Impacts are similar Alternative C. 
313 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

resources. In Lake Pleasant HMA, Managing for AML will minimize competition with wildlife and livestock. 

Harquahala HA will help sensitive habitats recover and reduce competition for forage, water, or other habitat. 

4.11.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

In the monument, biological resources would benefit from prohibiting cross-country OHV use, which would prevent the destruction of vegetation and priority wildlife habitats. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 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. Allowing cross-country OHV use would harm vegetation and wildlife. Open OHV use could cause the loss of priority habitat and habitat for priority species, including desert tortoise. 

In the monument, Designating 140 miles of road as open and closing 38 miles would reduce habitat fragmentation and human disturbance to priority habitats, including riparian and pronghorn habitats. Closed roads would reclaim and restore habitat. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 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 monument would be similar to those described for Alternative B, except that 129 miles of roads would remain open, providing less habitat fragmentation. 

Impacts in the monuwould be similar to described for AlternB, except that 47 miroads would remain open, fragmenting eless habitat than undAlternative C. 

4.11.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts are expected. Allocations to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics would recognize wildlife 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except that allocating 107,510 acres to maintain 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaC, except 91,480 acwould be allocated t
314 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

populations and habitat as important aspects of naturalness and actively manage them. Allocating 56,040 acres in the Harquahala Management Unit, along with restrictions to roads and vehicles, would reduce disturbances to priority wildlife habitats.Closing lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics to mineral material disposal would reduce ground disturbance and impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

or enhance wilderness characteristics in 3 management units, along with restrictions to roads and vehicles, would further reduce disturbances to priority wildlife habitats. 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

4.12 Impacts on Cultural Resources 

4.12.1 From Management of Special Area Designations 

Management of WSR eligible segments of the Agua Fria River for nonimpairment will also continue to protect cultural resources. Management of designated Wilderness will preserve cultural resources in current condition. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A, except ACEC designation for Perry Mesa and Larry Canyon would be removed.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 

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. Impacts of Back Country Byways would be the same as Alternative B. 

No back country byare proposed; therefno impacts to culturresources are expectACEC designations would have similar impacts to those discussed for AlternC. Designating morACECs would furthrestrict motorized acand other land uses, thereby better proteccultural resources. 
315 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

damage archaeological 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 monument’s natural and cultural landscape. Disposal of lands in the Upper Agua Fria River Basin could remove significant cultural resources from Federal protection. 

Acquisitions would have the same impacts as Alternative 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 would have the same impacts as Alternative 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 Bradshaw-Harquahala, 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 Alternative B, but would allow additional flexibility. 

In the monument, eliminating the BlacCanyon utility corriwould have impacts similar Alternative CIn the BradshawHarquahala, acquiristate and federal lanwould likely increaslevel of protection fcultural resources on those lands, much awould Alternative C

4.12.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 

Actions to improve soil and vegetation stability will help protect cultural resources from eroding. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar Alternative A. 

4.12.4 From Biological In the monument, Actions designed to protect Limiting vehicle routes Impacts are similar 
316 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Resource Management modification of existing 

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. 

wildlife habitats 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. 

in pronghorn corridors might restrict access to cultural resources, protecting them from human intrusion, while limiting opportunities for research, monitoring, and interpretation. In the monument, fence modifications would have impacts similar to those in Alternative A. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, closing or limiting routes in sensitive habitats could restrict access that leads to damage. 

Alternative C. 

4.12.5 From Cultural Resource Management 

In the monument, 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 will 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. 

Impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those described in Alternative B, except: In the monument, 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 Alternative B, but in fewer areas and less intensive for the Moderate developed sites. Overall there is less potential for damage 

In the monument, nsites would be deveto High public use aone site would be developed to Moderpublic use. This alternative would suthe fewest sites to potential damage, balso develop the fewsites for public educand enjoyment. In Bradshaw-Harqusites would be allocto public use in two SCRMAs. This alternative subjects fewest sites to poten
317 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Development of sites for public use could improve understanding, reducing 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 monument 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. 

to cultural resources and reduced opportunity for public education and enjoyment of cultural sites than in Alternative 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. 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. 

damage from visitatbut also provides thleast opportunities fpublic education, recreation, and econreturn from cultural heritage tourism. 

4.12.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.12.7 From Recreation Management 

In the monument, limiting motorized vehicle use would help protect sites. 

Prohibiting geocaches on sites will reduce vandalism and disturbance. 

This alternative would allocate a smaller proportion of the monument to the Front 

This alternative woucreate the lowest levvisitation and the lerisk of damage to cu
318 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

In Bradshaw-Harquahala, continued protection and interpretation of the Harquahala Peak 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. 

Restricting camping and campfires near sites could reduce damage. For SRPs, limiting group size will 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 alterantive 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. 

Country RMZ than Alternative B with an expected reduction in levels of recreational facilities and visitation. 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. 

resources. Access restrictions would lithe regular monitorisites in remote areasleaving some sites vulnerable to vandaReduced access woureduce opportunities interpretation and pueducation, as well areduced opportunitiscientific research. In Bradshaw-Harqumore emphasis on nonmotorized recreaissuance of fewer SRand more miles of croutes would reduce potential of damage. Opportunitfor public educationcommunity partnersand revenues from cultural heritage touwould be reduced. 

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 

Establishing VRM classes through RMP decisions, along with actions that minimize or mitigate visual intrusions, would protect the integrity of cultural 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 
319 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

and historic sites. resources. 

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 will reduce soil erosion impacts to cultural sites. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, except that grazing riparian areas in winter only will 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 are expected to be similar to those discussed for Alternative B. 

Removing grazing fpublic lands would eliminate livestock impacts to cultural resources and enhanprimitive experiencevisitors. 

4.12.10 From Minerals Management 

Surface disturbance from mining can disturb or destroy cultural sites. Two active mining claims occur within the monument that may continue to be mined for casual use. In the BradshawHarquahala, archeological 

In the monument, impacts are expected to be similar Alternative A. In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts are expected to be similar to those described in Alternative A, except more areas would be closed to, or contain restrictions to 

In the monument, impacts are expected to be similar Alternative A. In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts are expected to be similar to those described in Alternative B, except more areas would be closed to, or contain 

In the monument, impacts are expectebe similar AlternativIn the BradshawHarquahala, impactexpected to be similthose described in Alternative C, excepeven more areas wobe closed to, or cont
320 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

surveys are conducted to evaluate if cultural resources might be affected by proposed mining. However, casual use mining does not require a mining plan and impacts to cultural resources may occur. 

mining, increasing protection of cultural resources. 

restrictions to mining, increasing protection of cultural resources. 

restrictions to mininfurther increasing protection of culturaresources. 

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 are similar to Alternative A, except archeological surveys would help locate sensitive resources that may require special attention. MIST would be used to reduce potential damage. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

4.12.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.12.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

Continued restrictions that limit the use of motorized vehicles to designated routes in the monument would help protect cultural resources. Continued use of existing 

Selected routes that lead directly to sites that have been damaged or are threatened by vandalism would be closed. Limiting vehicle traffic on 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except Alternative C would allocate fewer transportation routes. More limited public access would be expected 

Alternative D would close the largest numof transportation rouin both planning arethe monument, only limited motorized uwould be allowed in 
321 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

roads leading to large archaeological sites might increase the potential for vandalism and damage. 

fragile sites would help protect the surface and could deter illegal digging and collecting activities. Alternative 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. 

to reduce the impacts to archaeological sites from vehicle and visitor traffic in both planning areas. 

extensive Back CouRMZ. While this wreduce the levels of damage, fewer areas would be available fsite visitation and cultural heritage touprojects. Restricted access walso limit the regulamonitoring of archaeological sites remote areas. Restrictions on accepermitted scientific studies would limit scientific use of sitethe gathering of information useful fresearch and resourcmanagement. 

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 are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

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 diminish potential impacts. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A except in the BradshawHarquahala, fencing Tule Creek ACEC would 

prevent damage and special 

area designations would protect more areas than Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 
322 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.13.2 From Lands and Realty Management 

Impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

4.13.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 

Management to improve soil conditions in the monument could preserve potential sites. No impacts are expected in the Bradshaw-Harquahala. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.13.4 From Biological Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.13.5 From Cultural Resource Management 

Actions to protect cultural resources may preserve potential paleontological sites. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.13.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.13.7 From Recreation Management 

Impacts are expected to be inadvertent and minimal. Damage may occur from concentrated recreation use.

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, except reduction of routes may help preserve potential sites. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B, but more routes would be closed and more area allocated to Back Country RMZ. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaC, except more routwould be closed and more area allocated 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 expe

4.13.9 From Rangeland Management 

Continued grazing may reduce vegetation and increase erosion. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Elimination of grazicould help preserve potential sites. 

4.13.10 From Minerals Management 

No impacts are expected. 

Should sites be found, potential damage would be mitigated. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.13.11 From Fire Management 

Prescribed burning equipment may affect potential sites. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.13.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe
323 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.13.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

No impacts are expected in 

the monument. Unmanaged vehicle use in Bradshaw-Harquahala could damage potential sites. 

OHV use in the monument could damage potential sites. Limiting travel in Bradshaw-Harquahala could help preserve potential sites. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

 4.13.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts are expected. Management could help 

preserve potential sites by maintaining primitive settings. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

4.14 Impacts on Recreation 4.14.1 From Management of Special Designations 

Existing recreation opportunities in the eligible WSR corridors and wilderness areas would be retained. 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. 

Designating Bloody Basin Road as a back country byway could increase traffic and interaction among visitors. Primitive recreational experiences in the eligible WSR corridor could be diminished. The interpretive elements of the byway would increase visitor awareness, appreciation, and enjoyment. Designating a back country byway along Constellation Mine Road would have impacts similar to Bloody Basin Road. Conflicts between byway users and large OHV groups could diminish the scenic drive experience. Designating Tule Creek 

Impacts of Back Country Byways would be the same as in Alternative B. ACEC designation would have little to no impacts within the monument. Designating Tule Creek ACEC would have impacts similar to those under Alternative B. Designating ACECs in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would improve opportunities for primitive recreation experiences. Route closures in ACECs would lessen opportunities for 

No Back Country Byways are proposethere would be no impacts. Designating ACECs would have impacts similar to those descfor Alternative C. Route closures woureduce the connectivof the route network more than under Alternative C and codisrupt cross-countrtouring routes. Motorized recreatiowould be displaced would potentially trto other areas and roImpacts to wilderneareas due to group sand permit restrictio
324 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 group activities will protect wilderness values. 

motorized activities Impacts to wilderness areas due to group activities and permit restrictions would be the same as in Alternative B.

would be the same aAlternative B. 

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 recreation until future projects are proposed. Impacts of utility proposals would be analyzed at the time of application. 

Acquiring nonfederal lands that enhance monument’s values would improve recreation opportunities by improving access. 

Narrowing the utility 

corridor in the monument would reduce the area affected if a future utility project were proposed. 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 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A. 

In the monument, impacts would be sito Alternative C. Nlands would be dispand no impacts are expected. Impacts fcorridors would be similar to Alternativ
325 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

lands. 

4.14.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 

In the monument, 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 would be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative A. 

4.14.4 From Biological Resource Management 

In the monument, 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 big horn sheep habitat would improve hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. Motor vehicle restrictions 

Impacts in the monument would be the same as Alternative A. Designation of Harquahala Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA) would Protect sensitive wildlife habitat through route closures would diminish opportunities for motorized recreation. Management for desert tortoise could limit development of new motorized vehicle routes. Seasonal limitations on motorized special events the number of events that could occur in some places and could limit future expansion of those events. 

Limitation of routes in pronghorn movement corridors could reduce connectivity of motorized routes within the monument. Prohibiting recreational sites in pronghorn corridors could enhance the recreation experience of some users. Modifying fences to allow wildlife to move more freely could enhance viewing opportunities. Closing or limiting vehicle routes in the designated WHA and wildlife corridor could affect the connectivity of 

Impacts from route limitations and development of siterecreation in pronghcorridors would be similar to AlternativRemoval of all fencwould maintain routconnectivity and enhthe natural appearanthe landscape. Wildviewing might be enhanced. In the BradshawHarquahala, impactfrom wildlife management would the same as those discussed in AlternaB. 
326 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

in desert tortoise, Arizona night lizard, and Sonoran mountain king snake habitats could reduce motorized recreation opportunities. 

Ensuring connectivity of wildlife habitats could reduce motorized recreation by closing routes that cross sensitive areas or movement corridors. Wildlife viewing might be enhanced. 

the route network and diminish recreational opportunities. Impacts from desert tortoise restrictions would be the same as those identified in Alternative B. 

Management of destortoise wildlife corcould limit recreatioactivities. Other imfrom desert tortoise restrictions would bsame as Alternative 

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. 

Potential route closures could reduce motorized recreation opportunities. Conflicts among users could reduce, and the opportunities to experience cultural resources in a natural setting would be enhanced. Developing interpretive programs would lead to a better appreciation of the sites selected to be open to the public. Stipulations on SRPs would reduce damage caused by visitation from large groups. Improving routes and trails could open sites to a wider variety of users, but could limit access for some users.Educational programs and interpretive signs would raise visitor awareness and 

In the monument, impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except that one site would be allocated to High public use and eight sites would be allocated to Moderate public use. In Bradshaw-Harquahala four areas would be allocated for public use. Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, although this would not provide the educational and interpretive opportunities provided by Alternative B. Closing routes that lead to archeological sites would affect the ability of motorized users to access those areas and could lead to fragmentation of the route network. 

In the monument, nsites would be deveto High public use aone would be develoto Moderate use. Education and awarafforded by developsites would be least under this alternativSelf-discovery opportunities would greatest. User conflcould increase. In the BradshawHarquahala, impactwould be similar as described for AlternB, except sites in twcultural priority areawould be developed public use. Educatiand interpreted recreational opportuwould be less than iAlternative C. Opportunities for sediscovery would 
327 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

sensitivity. Developing five sites for High public use and four sites for Moderate public use in the monument 

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. 

Restricting SRPs to educational tours could reduce recreational and educational opportunities for casual users but could lead to better protection and stewardship of sites for long-term preservation. 

increase, but potenticonflicts between usmight increase also. 

4.14.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.14.7 From Recreation Management 

Increasing recreation could diminish the experience of some users and alter the setting for many activities. A lack of proactive, activity based recreation management could result in inappropriate use in sensitive areas, overcrowding and user conflicts. Dispersed camping would be expected to proliferate. Conflicts between users and resource disturbance are 

Managing the monument’s Back Country RMZ for more primitive recreational opportunities would benefit visitors seeking nonmotorized activities. Managing the Front Country RMZ would concentrate more intensive uses. In the monument, restrictions on dispersed camping might slightly reduce impacts. The two developed 

In the monument, impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B, except: Front Country allocation would be 42,410 acres and Back Country would encompass 28,420 acres. Camping in Front Country would be allowed only at designated dispersed camp sites. Impacts of developed campground would be similar as described in Alternative 

In the monument, impacts would be sito those described foAlternative C, excepThe Front Country zwould be reduced to 1,530 acres and the Country zone would 68,380 acres. Impacts of dispersed camping would be similar to Alternativexcept it would be restricted to designasites to minimize impacts. 
328 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

expected to escalate. Closures in some OHV routes or activity areas could limit recreation, but resources would be protected. In Bradshaw Harquahala, cross-country could disrupt other recreational settings. The settings would shift over 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. 

campgrounds would increase vehicle based camping opportunities. Some popular shooting areas would be closed for safety reasons. Shooters would be displaced to other locations. Developing connecting trails for nonmotorized activities would enhance recreation opportunities and reduce conflicts. Competitive OHV events would be reduced to 16 annual events. The North Black Canyon Trail SRMA would enhance opportunities for nonmotorized trails, primarily equestrian recreation. On the monument, 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 

B, but in only one place. Campfires would be allowed at dispersed campsites with some limitations. Vehicles would be allowed to pull off no more than 15 feet for day use or dispersed camping, reducing disturbance, but potentially hindering camper accommodations. Impacts of recreational target shooting would be similar to Alternative B, except the Front Country 

zone would be closed to that activity. Management actions in the BradshawHarquahala would 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 high quality recreation opportunities. Providing staging and 

Vehicles would be allowed to pull off r15 feet to park for duse, but designated routes would further reduce disturbance ovehicle pull offs. Campfires would be allowed at dispersed sites, but wood for campfires must be brought in from outthe monument. Denying use of locamaterial for campfirwould reduce disturof woody species. Closure of the monuto recreational targeshooting would dispall non-hunting shooto locations outside monument. 56,240 acres of SRMand RMZs would be allocated for more intensive recreation management. The overall area available for intensimotorized use woulsmaller than all othealternatives. Many 
329 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

retrieval, potentially diminishing hunting opportunities. Route closures would diminish opportunities for traditional users. Area closures could disconnect multiple routes in the network. Protecting biological and cultural resources through the closures would preserve the natural setting.Management of 149,760 acres of BLM land in SRMAs for OHV and intensive recreation would ensure that recreation opportunities would be maintained while reducing conflicts with other users. Development of facilities would enhance the recreation experience for many users. Increasing SRP permits to 12 on the monument could increase opportunities for structured tour groups, while potentially increasing conflicts between commercial tours and casual users at developed sites. In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts 

trail areas for multiple recreation activities and creating new trails would enhance recreation experiences by increasing opportunities and reducing user conflict. Alternative C would significantly reduce the overall availability of public lands for motorized competitive races. In the designated areas, the number of races would be limit to 6 per year. The impacts of OHV management and route closures in ACECs and lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics would be Similar to Alternative B, except that more area would be designated as ACECs and WHAs resulting in increased limitations on areas available for motorized recreation.

In the monument, impacts of SRPs would be similar to those described for Alternative B, except the maximum number to be authorized 

and activities would displaced to other arConflicts between cusers and larger groactivities would inteand conflicts betweemotorized and nonmotorized recreationists could increase. The impacts of OHV management and roclosures in ACECs lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness charactewould be the highesunder this alternativProhibiting SRPs in monument may redueliminate the ability some users to experthe monument resouIt could also eliminaconflicts between cavisitors and large grespecially at populalocations. In the BradshawHarquahala, impactregarding the numbSRPs issued would the same as in the Alternative A. Limthe number of allow
330 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

regarding the number of SRPs issued would be the similar to those described in Alternative A except: the number of motorized competitive races would be limited to 14 per year. 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 and allow diverse OHV opportunities in these areas. Restricting competitive, commercial, and organized group events to certain VRM and ROS classes could limit the opportunities to find new areas for events. Limiting group events to allocated VRM standards and recreation could limit the total area open to existing events and prevent designating locations for new events. 

across the monument would be six. In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts from SRP management would be similar to those described in Alternative A, except: a maximum of six motorized competitive races would be authorized per year. In this alternative, races would not be allowed in the Table Mesa SRMA, reducing routes available to that use. Overall, available routes should meet demand, but annual limits for races in each SRMA may result in races being relocated to a less desirable location if the requested location has been allocated. These limits in each SRMA would minimize potential user conflicts in those areas and allow for more diverse OHV opportunities. 

races in this alternattwo is less than the current situation of races per year. No rwill be allowed in thHieroglyphic MounSRMA. This could severe impact on motorized racing enthusiast because imoving the only remaining race locafurther from Phoeniit limits the racing tSRMA that has less diverse routes. Racopportunities would inevitably lost and tdemand will no longmet. 

4.14.8 From Visual Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. In the monument, managing 

12,700 acres as VRM Class II and 57,900 acres as Class III would enable the Back 

In the monument, impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except VRM Class III would be 

In the monument, impacts would be sito Alternative B, exVRM Class III wou
331 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Country zone to be maintained as natural appearing and the Front Country zone to accommodate recreation related activities and developments. Managing lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics as VRM Class II would help retain appearance of naturalness in the areas and the primitive recreational experience. Improvements would need to be designed to meet VRM standards and may require design modifications to do so. 

reduced to 42,410 acres and VRM Class II would increase to 28,490 acres. In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts would be similar as described for Alternative B, except 134,920 acres would be allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics and allocated to VRM Class II. Managing Sheep Mountain ONA ACEC as VRM Class I would enhance the visual setting of the area. 

reduced to 1,530 acrand VRM Class II wincrease to 69,370 aIn the BradshawHarquahala, 226,40acres of lands would allocated to maintaienhance wilderness characteristics and 142,700 acres of ONACEC would be managed for VRM CI. Impacts to recreawould be to maintainatural and open spacharacter of the visulandscaped with minvisual impacts from proposed developm

4.14.9 From Rangeland Management 

Increasing recreation use is increasing conflicts between recreation users and livestock grazing. If 

private landowners close access across their lands, BLM lands will be unavailable for recreation uses resulting in reduced recreation opportunities. 

In the monument, limiting grazing in the riparian to winter season would degrade the recreational experience during those months. The primitive recreation experience would be enhanced in the summer months. Livestock control facilities would potentially degrade the visual landscape. Impacts would be similar in the rest of the monument. Improved riparian 

In the monument, removal of livestock from riparian areas would eliminate conflicts with cattle and enhance the recreational experience in those areas. Other grazing related impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. 

The potential for conflicts with livestwould be eliminatedBoth motorized and primitive recreation experiences could improve as recreatiosettings become free livestock inconvenieAccess to some publands could be lost iranchers sell their pproperty. The numbareas where rancherhave traditionally 
332 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

conditions from livestock management would enhance settings in riparian areas, as well as improve wildlife viewing opportunities. Less conflict with livestock could occur in the Front Country zone during summer, but the fencing 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 BradshawHarquahala, impacts would be similar to those described for the monument above. Improved vegetation conditions would improve the recreation setting for nonmotorized users. 

permitted public accacross private land cdecline, making sompublic land inaccessin areas notable for interspersed private ranch and BLM land

4.14.10 From Minerals Management 

In the monument, no impacts from mining are expected. Increased recreation demand is increasing 

In the monument, no impacts from mining are expected. Closing lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

In the monument, no impacts from mining are expected. Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except a 

In the monument, nimpacts from mininexpected. Impacts would be sito Alternative B, ex
333 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

conflict between recreation users and mining. Mining in popular areas for recreation will degrade the recreational experience, potentially reduce recreation opportunities. Most impacts would result from developing saleable minerals. Designated wilderness areas and Agua Fria National Monument--an area of 172,510 acres--are closed to mineral material disposal. 

wilderness characteristics and ACECs to mineral material disposal would improve recreation opportunities and settings on 96,150 acres. There would be no impacts from leasable minerals management and few impacts from locatable minerals. 

total of 325,970 acres would be closed to mineral material disposal. Visual settings would be better maintained because mining projects would be consistent with view management objectives. 

total of 469,680 acrwould be closed to mineral material disposal. Closures wensure the retaining recreation opportunin undisturbed natursettings over the lararea under any of thalternatives. 

4.14.11 From Fire Management 

Prescribed and natural fires would displace recreation users from burned areas until recovery and would potentially limit recreation areas. Improved vegetation conditions resulting from burns in adapted environments could improve recreational experiences and wildlife viewing opportunities. 

Impacts would be the same as for 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. 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts would be thsame as Alternative 

4.14.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.14.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

OHVs and other mechanized users will only be allowed to use routes and areas compatible with their recreation because 

In the monument, 140 miles, of routes would remain open to vehicular travel. The route system would enhance 

In the monument, the impact of route closures and openings would have the same impact as Alternative B, except 129 

In the monument, 47 miles of routes wremain open to vehitravel. Opportunitiemotorized recreation 
334 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

heavy OHV use has adverse effects on the land. No closures are expected 

for motorized route-based recreation in the monument. However, cross-country motorized travel is prohibited. In the BradshawHarquahala, 2,240 miles of vehicle routes would remain open, and motorized recreation opportunities would not be affected. 

opportunities for motorized recreation by creating loop trails, which would allow connected touring, provide for an increase in access, and offer extended recreational opportunities. Closing 38 mils of route could limit opportunities for motorized recreation and displace users elsewhere. Up to 48 miles of route in the Bradshaw-Harquahala would be closed. The closures would affect and displace motorized recreational opportunities for traditional users of those routes. A total of 168 miles of routes would be closed to (1) protect resources, (2) reduce redundancy, and (3) limit routes for administrative use. 14 miles of new routes would be established to mitigate losses from the closures and to achieve better route connectivity. Limiting all mechanized vehicles to inventoried routes would eliminate cross-country OHV travel. 

miles of routes would remain open and 50 miles of existing routes would be closed. The impacts on opportunities for recreation in the Bradshaw-Harquahala would be similar to those under Alternative B, except that the model route system for Alternative C would close 382 miles of routes Route closures in special area designations would have the same impact as described in Alternative B. Developing connecting route networks would have the same impacts as Alternative B. 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. Closing or limiting 

would be limited, anloop trails would nodeveloped. The rousystem would close 122 miles of existing routes and cdiminish opportunitfor motorized recreaand public access in some areas. Opportunities for nomotorized recreation would be enhanced throughout the monument. There wbe more opportunity experience solitude natural landscape settings. In the BradshawHarquahala, impactfrom route designaton recreational opportunities would similar to Alternativexcept that 412 mileroutes in ACECs anlands allocated to enhance wilderness characteristics woulclosed. Impacts from route limitations and development of siterecreation in the pronghorn corridors 
335 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Restricting all motorized and non-motorized vehicles to existing routes would prevent development of new routes. Enacting specific route, wash, or area closures in designated areas would affect the recreational opportunities of motorized users. Area closures could disconnect multiple routes in the network. Protecting biological and cultural resources through the closures would maintain resources and preserve the natural setting for future recreational opportunities. Developing connecting route networks allow all types of users to enjoy activities consistently, in more areas, and with fewer user conflicts. Managing the North Black Canyon Trail SRMA would enhance the non-motorized recreation experience in the northern portion of the planning area. The closure of routes in sensitive wildlife areas 

vehicle routes in the Belmont/Big Horn Mountains WHA area and in the Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn Wildlife Corridor could affect the connectivity of the route network and diminish the recreational experience and opportunities for motorized users. Fragmented route systems could diminish the recreational experience for some users and possibly lead to an increase in unauthorized crosscountry travel to connect routes. Impacts from desert tortoise restrictions would be the same as those identified in Alternative B. 

Agua Fria National Monument would bsimilar to those undAlternative C. Removing all fenceprohibiting new onethe monument woulmaintain connectivithe motorized route system developed for Alternative D. ACEC designations could limit motorizerecreation developmand restrict activitiediminishing the recreation experiencsome users. Impacts from desert tortoise restrictions would be the same athose identified in Alternative B. 
336 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

would diminish motorized recreation opportunities. Opportunities for wildlife viewing could be enhanced.Lessening or limiting development of new routes in areas managed for desert tortoise habitat would limit opportunities for trail-based 

individual, organized group or special motorized recreation uses. 

4.14.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

In the monument, no impacts are expected. In the BradshawHarquahala, opportunities for primitive and nonmotorized types of recreation would decline over the life of the plan due to increasing motorized recreation and land use authorizations. Lands with semi primitive nonmotorized recreation settings and could decline. 

In the monument, no impacts are expected. In the BradshawHarquahala, 56,040 acres of

land would be managed to maintain or enhance 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. More crowded motorized routes would make the increase encounters with 

In the monument, no impacts are expected. In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts would be the same as Alternative B except that 107,510 acres of land would be managed to maintain or enhance 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 

In the monument, nimpacts are expecteThe impacts of manlands in the BradshaHarquahala allocatemaintain or enhance wilderness charactewould be similar to under Alternative B C, except that the toarea of public lands affected would be 91,480 acres. Alternative D would designate some of thlands identified to maintain or enhance wilderness charactedescribed in AlternaB and C as ONA ACECs. 
337 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

other motorized users. Thiswould 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 or enhance wilderness characteristics by being able to recreate in a more natural setting. 

Alternative B. 

4.15 Impacts on Visual Resources 4.15.1 From Management of Special Designations 

Present conditions would be maintained. BLM would evaluate future projects for visual impacts, 

but would give no guidance 

to consistency of area values. The two ACECs in the monument would be maintained, and the Agua Fria River would remain eligible for WSR designation. No VRM classes have been assigned.In the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, 5 wilderness areas would be managed by VRM Class I standards. 

In the monument, WSR eligibility would be maintained. Corridors should maintain the natural views within those corridors. Back Country Byway designation on the Bloody Basin Road would have very low impacts from proposed associated facilities. In the BradshawHarquahaha, retaining the Harquahala Mtn Summit Road would not affect existing scenic quality. The wilderness areas would remain under VRM Class I. Tule Creek ACEC could result in slightly degraded views by requiring fences 

In the monument, WSR eligibility would be maintained. The addition of four ACECs requiring fencing to prohibit livestock could slightly degrade the visual resources. Limitation to vehicle routes may result in some route closures that could improve the visual character of the areas. In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B, except: Management of seven ACECs could slightly degrade visual resources, 

In the monument, Weligibility would be maintained. Designaof the 13,070 acre Aalong the Agua Fria River would have siimpacts to those described for the ACin Alternative C, bua somewhat larger aIn the BradshawHarquahala, impactwould be similar to described in AlternaB. Designation of the 8 ACECs would be sito those described in Alternative C, excepover a much larger aComplete closure of 
338 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

to prohibit livestock. Improved vegetation conditions and closure to mining could steadily improve the visual character of the ACEC. 

but could improve visual resources by prohibiting mining, closing some roads, precluding new recreational sites, and prohibiting construction of new range improvements in some areas. 

ACECs to motorizetravel will potentiallimprove visual charby allowing existing vehicle routes to slodisappear. The wilderness areas woremain in VRM clas

4.15.2 From Lands and Realty Management 

In the monument, land acquisition would be evaluated for visual resource on a projectspecific environmental review. New utility proposals could affect the visual character of the landscape. The impacts would be limited to the western end of the monument, where there are already visual disturbances from previous utility projects. In the BradshawHarquahala, no impacts are expected from land acquisition. Acquisitions would be evaluated for visual resources under a project-specific environmental review. Future utility, mining, or development projects would no longer have to 

In both planning areas, visual resources would benefit because newly acquired parcels would be inventoried and managed according to the 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 structures. 

Narrowing the corridor in 

the monument could affect visual resources by confining new utilities to areas already visually affected by existing structures. An expansion of

the corridor could impact the Bumble Bee area and 

Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B, except: Eliminating the existing utility corridor in the monument would eliminate potential impacts of future utilities. A corresponding 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. In the BradshawImpacts to visual resources from land 

realty management actions would be simto those in Alternatiexcept: Impacts in monumefrom utility corridorwould be similar to under Alternative CIn the Bradshaw- Harquahala, no acrehas been found to bsuitable for disposalBLM would retain management of all plands, and projects wbe subject to design review to ensure compliance and consistency with VRclass objectives. 
339 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

conform with existing VRM class standards. Aesthetically incompatible projects could be introduced onto the public lands. These projects and authorizations could degrade recreation settings, view sheds, and open space qualities of public lands. 

sites visible from Sunset Point Scenic Overlook. Future telecommunication infrastructure projects would undergo environmental review that would analyze visual resources. Requiring projects to be designed to keep with the VRM class in which they occur would minimize impacts. In the BradshawHarquahala, 58,400 acres have been determined to be suitable for disposal. All highway system routes and proposed corridors southwest of the Wickenburg Bypass corridor, would be inconsistent with VRM objectives. 

Harquahala, impacts of Disposal of 49,100 acres would be similar to those described for Alternative A. Impacts to visual resources from transportation corridors would be similar to those described for Alternative B. 

4.15.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 

Preventing or reducing impacts on air quality by developing mitigation during project planning could benefit visual resources by maintaining the local clarity of the visual landscape. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar Alternative A. 

4.15.4 From Biological Resource Management 

Negligible impacts are 

expected. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except: Designing wildlife management projects to 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except the area of WHAs in the monument would increases to 39,300 acres 

Impacts would be sito those described foAlternative C, excepmuch of the manageof important biologi
340 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

comply with VRM Classes I and II in some places would reduce visual impacts from those projects to a minimum. Potential closure of vehicle routes within 64,220 acres of Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) could improve visual landscapes where closures occur. 

in the monument and 157,180 acres in the Bradshaw-Harquahala. WHAs could enhance the visual landscape by removing existing disturbances. 

areas would be in ACECs, and an additional 24,290 acof WHA would be a

4.15.5 From Cultural Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. Implementing physical and 

administrative protection measures to stop, limit, or repair damage and vandalism to sites could affect visual resources. Building fences or other barriers could impair visual resources. Closing routes and restricting grazing could increase vegetation cover, creating a more naturalappearing landscape. Authorizing commercial and other group tours could degrade visual resources because of disturbance. In the monument, 4,438 acres would be allocated to High public use area for cultural resources. High public use could disturb visual resources by adding visitor facilities, improving 

In the monument, 11,600 acres would be allocated to High public use and would experience some of the same impacts as the areas designated for High public use in Alternative B. Two sites 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. In the BradshawHarquahala, the allocation of four SCRMAs could result in actions affecting visual resources. Impacts would be the same as those described for SCRMAs under 

Impacts to visual resources from culturesources would be similar to those discin the Visual 

Resources section 

of Management Com

to Both Planning Areas. In the monum

no sites would be allocated to High puuse.  In the BradshawHarquahala, the allocation of two SCRMAs could resuthe actions affecting visual resources. Impacts would be thsame as described foAlternative B. 
341 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

routes and signs, and developing a motorized or nonmotorized loop trail system. In the BradshawHarquahala, development of public use sites would have similar impacts to those described in the monument. In this alternative, public use sites would be developed in all eight SCRMAs. 

Alternative B. 

4.15.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.15.7 From Recreation Management 

In the monument, visual resources could be affected by installing signs at monument boundaries, in addition to disturbances and 

potential damage caused by 

target shooting. In the BradshawHarquahala, installing more signs could degrade visual resources. Large public land areas west of Highway 93 remaining open to crosscountry and OHV activity would continue to affect visual resources. As visitation increases over the life of the plan, visual 

In the monument, in the Front Country zone (57,900 acres), maintaining or enhancing both nonmotorized and motorized visitor travel could affect visual resources by introducing human facilities into the view shed, developing cultural sites, and building visitor amenities. In the Back Country zone (12,700 acres) no impacts are expected. The Passage RMZ (300 acres) would contain the major vehicle routes or traverse across the Back 

Impacts would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B, except Front Country allocated to Class III would be decreased to 42,410 acres, and VRM Class II in Back Country increased to 28,420 acres, and Passage would be decreased to 70 acres. In the BradshawHarquahala 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 

Impacts to visual resources from recremanagement would similar to those undAlternative B. In the monument, Front Country would be decreased to 1,530 aBack Country woulincreased to 68,380 acres, and Passage wbe increased to 990 Impacts to visual resources in the Bradshaw-HarquahaPlanning Area woulsimilar to Alternativexcept BLM would decrease the allocat
342 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

qualities could be further degraded by landscape damage and increasing levels of dust. 

Country RMZ. VRM objectives would allow maintaining the current visual character while providing limited management activities. Some visitor related development could occur, but it would not create significant impacts. In the BradshawHarquahala, all lands in MUs would be allocated as ERMAs, unless superseded for SRMAs or RMZs. Visual resources could be affected by this allocation by the establishment of recreational and visitor facilities. Management prescriptions for 9 SRMAs could affect visual resources by the development of staging/ camping areas and visitor facilities. Motorized events in lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics within the Harquahala Mountains could alter the visual landscape by reducing local visual clarity. Impacts, however, would be minimized by the restrictive 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics to four, totaling 98,430 acres. 

SRMAs to seven, totaling 56,240 acreAreas allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness charactewould increase to sidecrease in total acrto 91,480. 
343 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

timeframe for holding events. 

4.15.8 From Visual Resource Management 

Current conditions would 

be maintained, and since no 

VRM management classes were established through prior planning, the visual landscape is expected to gradually decline. A lack of clear management, direction can also be accounted for the decline of visual aesthetics in both planning areas. 

In the monument, 57,900 acres would be allocated to VRM Class III, and 13,000 allocated to VRM Class II. This combination of VRM Classes allows protection of

visual landscapes while meeting the objectives of managing recreation demands. In the BradshawHarquahala, division of VRM allocation into 4 classes allows management of resources consistent with the objective of Alternative B, while protecting the scenic and open space values in sensitive areas. Proposed projects over the life of the plan are expected to create visual intrusions in places where they do not already exist. However, the changes are expected to be minimal.

In the monument, visual resource impacts would be the same as in Alternative B, except: 42,410 acres of Front Country would be managed as VRM class III and 28,480 acres of Back Country and Passage zones would be managed as VRM Class II. In the BradshawHarquahala, there will be 4 designated VRM classes. Impacts would be similar to those in Alternative B, except that more land would be included in VRM Class II. This increase is expected to preserve the existing open space in a larger areas for the life of the plan. 

In the monument, thvisual resource impwould be the same athose in Alternative except: 1,530 acres Front Country woulmanaged as VRM CII and 69, 370 acre oBack Country and Passage zone would managed as VRM cII. In BradshawHarquahala,. Impacwould be similar to from Alternative C, except that the increof land in VRM claswould place a highestandard for managiintrusions across a llandscape. Preservibroad natural-appealandscapes is a high priority. The extent the landscape preserwould be greater thaunder Alternative C

4.15.9 From Rangeland Management 

Construction of more livestock control facilities could contribute to a steady decline in visual quality across the planning area. 

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative A, except: Construction of facilities to control livestock access to riparian areas could increase the number of 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except the improvements to riparian vegetation could be faster. 

Removing livestock would, reduce the vintrusion of fences, corals, and other developments. Impvegetation conditionwill also improve vi
344 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

livestock control facilities planned, but conformance of project design with established VRM classes will minimize the visual intrusion of projects. 

landscapes. Increaslivestock related developments in adjnonfederal lands, or conversion to nonagricultural uses could greatly degradvisual landscapes. Improved plant healcould improve visualandscapes in higher desert and grassland communities. 

4.15.10 From Minerals Management 

In the monument, only lands encumbered by mining claims are open to mining. No activity beyond casual use would be allowed without determinations of valid existing rights. Therefore, mineral development on existing claims would have minimal impacts on visual resource. In the BradshawHarquahala, most of the 

planning area would remain 

open to mineral location and development. Mining would alter the existing visual landscape by adding mining scars, facilities for operations, and routes. Localized degradation of air

quality and visual clarity could result from mine 

In the monument, impacts are the same as in Alternative 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 Class allocations. Alternative B would allow more visual intrusion into the landscape than would Alternatives C, D, or E. Alternative B would protect the visual landscape more than would Alternative A. In addition, mining would be prohibited from some lands as follows:  268,260 acres would be 

In the monument, impacts are the same as in Alternative B, except that visual impacts from the different types of mining would be eliminated on the following lands (including Wilderness acres):  325,970 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 

Impacts to visual resource managemefrom minerals management would similar to those undAlternative B, excepvisual impacts from different types of mwould be eliminated the following lands (including Wilderneacres):  469,680 acres wou

closed to developmof saleable minera

 446,440 acres wou

closed to developmof locatable miner

 453,550 acres wou

closed to developmof leasable minera
345 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

emissions and increased dust emissions. The five designated Wilderness areas (96,820 acres) would continue to be closed to any mineral development. 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 

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 mineral

4.15.11 From Fire Management 

Prescribed burning 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. 

Impacts would be the same as for Alternative A except some natural start fires may be allowed to burn in the national monument, increasing slightly the potential visual impacts. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative B. 

4.15.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. Removal of burros from 

the Harquahala Herd Area could improve vegetation cover. 

Impacts are similar Alternative C. 
346 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Scenery would change because natural conditions would be restored. 

4.15.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

In the monument, no significant impacts are expected. In the BradshawHarquahala, lands would remain undesignated per VRM Classes. New roads and routes authorized or pioneered could eventually create visual disturbances in the planning area. Roads up hillsides, through riparian zones, and alongterm soil and vegetation damage would impact visual resources over both the short and long-term. 

In the monument, no significant impacts are expected. In the BradshawHarquahala, a wide range of impacts are anticipated from management of travel, transportation and public access. Small transportation projects would be mitigated and consistent to the appropriate VRM classes. Impacts would be most significant on lands proposed for consideration as major highway corridors.

Impacts are similar to Alternative B. 

In the monument, nsignificant impacts expected. In the BradshawHarquahala, less advimpacts are anticipathan other alternativVRM allocations wimaintain the natural appearance of the monument landscapwhile meeting other resource managemeobjectives. Impacts would be greatly redthan those considereunder Alternatives B C. As described in Alternative B, there could be significant visual impacts from major county, state federal highway projects. Overall, allocated VRM classes would maintor enhance the appearance of publilands. 

4.15.14 From Management of Wilderness 

No areas are under 

consideration for management of wilderness characteristics. Therefore, 

Visual and scenic resource conditions would be maintained and protected within landscapes allocated 

Impacts are similar to Alternative B.

Impacts are similar Alternative B. 
347 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Characteristics there are no impacts on 

visual resources. 

to maintain or enhance 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 Designations 

Exclusion of grazing in Larry Canyon ACEC has a negligible effect on rangeland management. Designation of the WSR corridors would institute a restriction for livestock use during the winter season on the riparian segments of the corridor. 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. There is also slight potential of vehiclelivestock 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 and recreation use in the area, therefore increasing animalvehicle collisions. In the BradshawHarquahala, Tue Creek ACEC would exclude grazing from fenced areas. This would improve health of riparian vegetation and negligibly decrease AUMs for the grazing allotment. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except: Exclusion of livestock from 810 acres of riparian ACEC in the monument would have a negligible affect on livestock grazing. In the BradshawHarquahala, reduced surface disturbance from non-grazing activities restricted by ACEC designation on 87,310 acres would improve forage conditions and reduce potential for vehicle-animal collisions. Designating the Constellation Mine Road as a back country byway would have the same impacts as in Alternative B. 

Management of the 13,070 acres of ACEthe monument woulhelp improve range conditions by reducvehicle traffic, damariparian vegetation, disturbance by recreational users, wildlife stress, and potential vectoring onoxious and invasivspecies. Designation of 8 ACin the BradshawHarquahala would hsimilar impacts to thdescribed in AlternaC, but over a larger (314,580 acres). 

4.16.2 From Lands and Realty Management 

In the monument, no impacts are expected. In the BradshawIn the monument, narrowing the utility corridor to existing rights- of-way would restrict Eliminating the Black Canyon corridor would eliminate the development of short Impacts to rangelan

vegetation would be similar to that descrin Alternative C, ex
348 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Harquahala, maintenance or construction of utilities in corridors may slightly disturb vegetation and disrupt grazing operations temporarily. Acquiring privately owned and state-held lands would create large blocks of federally managed lands. These blocks could consolidate management, and increase AUM. Land disposal of 54,370 acres would reduce available grazing lands and/or livestock developments located on those lands. Depending on the size of parcels, AUMs may be reduced or whole allotments may be closed. 

impacts to vegetation from new utility. In the BradshawHarquahala, lands and realty related impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative A, except: Lands available for disposal would be 58,400 acres. Authorized AUMs might need to be adjusted. The total acreage from the sale, conveyance, or R&PP would represent a potential loss of less than 6% of the land available for livestock grazing in BradshawHarquahala. 

term vegetation disturbances, stress to livestock and wildlife, animal-vehicle collisions, and vectoring weeds. In the BradshawHarquahala, impacts would be similar to Alternative A. Impacts of the land tenure adjustment of 49,100 acres of BLM-managed federal lands would be similar to those described for Alternative B. The total acreage from these actions would represent a potential loss of five percent of the lands available for livestock grazing. 

impacts to grazing alivestock would end the cessation of graz

4.16.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 

Reducing or eliminating livestock grazing would accelerate the rate of improvement. 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. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar Alternative A. 
349 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.16.4 From Biological Resource Management 

In the monument, the use of

prescribed fires has short term impacts on vegetation. The results could improve vegetation quantity and quality. Limits on mechanical vegetation treatment have the potential to assist invasive species to encroach. Modifying fencing to allow for wildlife movement could increase the movement of livestock across pastures and allotments. Native fish transplants could require restricting livestock use or excluding livestock from the site to prevent harming the fish. In the BradshawHarquahala, mitigation and closure of waters could result in poor livestock distribution and added operation costs. 

Impacts on the monument are similar to Alternative 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 vehicle routes could limit access to range improvements, increasing maintenance costs. Reduced vehicle use may reduce vehicle-animal impacts and disturbance. 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. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are similar Alternative B. 

4.16.5 From Cultural Resource Management 

Site protection measures to exclude livestock from sites through fencing may slightly reduce available forage. Impacts are expected to be negligible. 

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 visitor use. If the protected areas contain 

Impacts would be the same as described by Alternative B. 

Impacts would be thsame as described bAlternative B. 
350 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. 

4.16.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.16.7 From Recreation Management 

Current OHV designations, limited to existing roads and trails, lead to proliferation of vehicle routes, disturbance to vegetation, vehicle-animal encounters, and vandalism of range improvements and private property. SRPs have the potential to have similar effects, but may be slightly lower due to imposed limitations and restrictions. 

Recreation allocations on the monument are not expected to affect rangeland resources or use. Increased visitation is expected to bring increased vehicle numbers, increasing animal-vehicle encounters, and vectoring of invasive weeds. Limiting vehicles to designated routes will reduce vehicle related impacts. Other recreation impacts in the Bradshaw-Harquahala would include recreational target shooting being prohibited on 27,570 acres and restricted near High public use areas, resulting in a decreased risk of 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except: In the monument, reduced Front Country and increased Back Country RMZs would reduce people-livestock 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, recreational target shooting restrictions could further reduce potential conflicts with livestock and shooting. Reduced 

Impacts in from recreation would be similar to those descfor Alternative C, exthat the Cessation ograzing would elimiimpacts to livestock
351 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

animal stress and mortality. Depending on the size of the campground/staging areas to be developed iauthorized 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. 

special use permits issued motorized race events could reduce the risk of disturbance to livestock and mortality from collisions with vehicles. 

4.16.8 From Visual Resource Management 

No impacts are expected 

from VRM. 

Impacts resulting from VRM management classes would include increased costs of range project developments 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. 

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative B. 

Alternative D elimingrazing from the planning area, so no impacts are expectefrom VRM managem

4.16.9 From Rangeland Management 

No impacts are expected. Winter only grazing in 

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 would be similar to Alternative B, except: Prohibiting grazing in riparian areas in the monument would close 25,989 acres to livestock. Prohibiting grazing in Bradshaw-Harquahala would potentially close 249,400 acres to livestock. 

Closing all allotmengrazing would elimi13,492 AUMs in the monument and 69,5AUMs in the BradshHarquahala. If ranccannot find alternatiforage for their livesholders of all 104 peand leases will go obusiness. Cost of removal of unneces
352 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. 

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 Alternative B. 

range improvements would be born by thBLM, as well as cosmaintaining facilitieused for other purpoVegetation conditiowould improve untienvironmental stabireached. 

4.16.10 From Minerals Management 

The monument is closed to new mineral entry. This action eliminates the risk of increased livestock-vehicle collisions. Also avoided would be the loss of productive rangeland vegetation to the surface disturbance of mining. Impacts in the BradshawHarquahala are expected to be negligible. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar Alternative 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 affect grazing, but would also improve vegetation quality and quantity. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar Alternative A. 

4.16.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts are expected in 

the monument because of 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are similar Alternative A. 
353 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

the lack of burros in the area. In the BradshawHarquahala, current conditions for burros would be maintained in the Lake Pleasant HMA. If all herds are removed, upland vegetation would increase, riparian areas would improve, and competition for water between livestock and wildlife would decrease. 

4.16.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

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. 

Limiting vehicular travel in these same areas would reduce damage to upland and riparian vegetation, stress to animals, risk of animal-vehocle collisions, and potential vectoring of noxious weeds. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative B. 

4.16.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts are expected. For both planning areas, 

small impact are expected by preventing the construction of new range 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative B. 
354 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

 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 monument 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 would be the similar to Alternative 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 would be the similar to Alternative A in the monument. Impacts in BradshawHarquahala would be similar to Alternative 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 would be thsimilar to Alternativexcept more acreage would be specially designated. Mineral developmenwould also be closeBaldy Mountain ONACEC, Harquahala Mountains ONA ACand Vulture MountaACEC. Any potentleasing and sales wonot occur in the BelBig Horn MountainACEC. 

4.17.2 From Lands and Realty Management 

No impacts are expected in 

the Monument. Acquisition of nonfederal mineral estate in two RCAs would increase potentially developable mineral resources. Closure of reconveyed lands in the Black Canyon corridor precludes opportunities for mineral development. 

No impacts are expected in 

the monument. Rights-of-way, leases, and patents establish superior rights to future mineral development, but may also cause access restrictions. However, rights-of-way for roads, highways, and powerlines could improve access and infrastructure. Land ownership 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except opening small tracts and reconveyed lands for high potential areas only would limit future development opportunities. This would potentially reduce conflict with surface owners. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative B, exthat keeping all smatract and reconveyelands closed to minedevelopment would the same as AlternaA. 
355 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Small tract lands closed to location could cause conflicts with surface owners. 

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. 

4.17.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 

Actions to protect soil, air, and water resources generally increase mine productions costs, occasionally rendering operations economically unfeasible. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.17.4 From Biological Resource Management 

Tortoise habitat restrictions decrease opportunities for developing mineral resources. Stipulations and mitigation for wildlife 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 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 
356 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.17.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 

Discovery of paleontological resources during development could increase the costs of mineral extraction. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.17.7 From Recreation Management 

Allocations such as SRMAs might minimize potential surface disturbances from mineral development and where development can occur. Though most of these allocations do not close areas to mining, compliance with management prescriptions could increase development costs. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.17.8 From Visual Resource Management 

No VRM Classes have been 

established. VRM has generally been managed to Class III, which is not expected to affect minerals and energy management. 

Impacts of VRM Class III and IV would be similar to current 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 if it cannot conform to allocated VRM standard. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

4.17.9 From Rangeland No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe
357 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Management 4.17.10 From Minerals Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.17.11 From Fire Management 

Prescribed burning and wildfires may affect access to mineral resources during fire operations. Management can protect mine developments by reducing the risk of devastating wildfires. Impacts would short term and would not affect longterm development potential.

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.17.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.17.13 From Land Health Standards 

Land Health Standards would potentially raise reclamation standards and costs, and result in a greater delay in bond release. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.17.14 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

Transportation management requirements impose more limits on the number and location of roads and require mitigation to reduceimpacts. Authorization would be required 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. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 
358 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.17.15 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts are expected. Lands allocated to maintain 

or enhance wilderness characteristics would be closed to mineral material disposal. Closing these areas would prevent the exploitation of potential resources, but would ensure preservation of natural and primitive characteristics. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts would be thsimilar to Alternativexcept that in additiclosing lands allocafor management of wilderness characteto mineral material disposal, mineral angeothermal leasing would also be prohi

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 human-caused 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 limit suppression and access. No mechanized equipment can be used, affecting fire suppression strategies and options for fuel treatment. 

Designation of Bloody Basin Road and Constellation Mine Road as Back 

Country Byways could increase the risk of human caused fires. 

Vehicular travel would 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 are expectebe similar to AlternaC. 

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 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except disposal increases to 58,400 acres. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except disposal decreases to 49,100 acres. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative A. However, impacts rto land disposal are eliminated as no acrare available for dis
359 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

hazards to aircraft and ground resources, and restrict fire operations, thereby increasing overall costs. 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 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 would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 
360 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 would be similar to those described for Alternative A, except further closures of vehicle routes to protect biological resources could reduce visitor use and decrease the opportunity for humancaused ignitions. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

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. 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. 

Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative A, except increased public visitation from development of public use cultural sites may increase the risk of 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. 

Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B, except the number of sites developed for public use would be less and 276,527 acres are allocated to SCRMAs. 

Impacts would be sito those described foAlternative C, excepnumber of sites developed for publiwould be less than iAlternative C and 125,292 acres are allocated to SCRMA

4.18.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.18.7 From Recreation Management 

Allowing continued open areas increases the risk of human caused fire ignitions as recreation use increases. Allowing target shooting 

Continued dispersed camping will increase the risk of human-caused ignitions. 

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B, except the restriction of vehicle use in SRMAs could 

Impacts would be sito those described in Alternative B, excepmore routes would bclosed than in Alter
361 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

increases the potential for ignitions as shooting is a common cause of wildfire in some areas. 

In both planning areas, increased visitor use could increase the risk of humancaused fires and change suppression decisions, prioritization of resources, and resulting costs. 

decrease the potential of human-caused ignition. 

C. 

4.18.8 From Visual Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.18.9 From Rangeland Management 

Livestock grazing can reduce the loading of fine fuels, reducing the frequency and size of wild fires. However, 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. However, suppression actions often depend on water from range improvements. In areas planned for fire treatment, livestock use can remove enough forage to 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except some naturally ignited fires may be allowed to burn in the monument. This may reduce the cost of 

prescribed burning, but may 

increase the risk of escaped wildfires. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 
362 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

preclude prescribed burning. 

4.18.10 From Minerals Management 

Mineral development in the Bradshaw-Harquahala may result in an increase in human-caused fire ignitions. Development associated with mining also increases the risk and complexity of wildland fire suppression operations. 

No impacts are expected in 

the monument. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.18.11 From Fire Management 

Full suppression of all wildfires helps to keep some fires small, reducing harm to resources. In Bradshaw-Harquahala 14,000 acres have been selected for prescribed fire treatments in the Weaver Mountains to treat hazardous fuel accumulations and reduce the threat of large catastrophic wildfires. Existing roads and disturbed areas would be used to avoid impacts to other resources. Wildland fire would not be allowed in Wildland Urban Interface. Prescribed fire 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except wildland fire could be allowed if defined prescriptive conditions are being met, especially in the Monument’s tobosa grasslands. Wildland fire use would help to maintain and enhance 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. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 
363 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

operations would also be limited and costs increased.

4.18.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.18.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

Restricting vehicles to existing roads and trails would reduce the potential for accidental humancaused ignitions. Initially, no major impacts are expected, but as increases in vehicle travel on designated routes continue, the potential for human-caused fire will also increase. 

Impacts to fire under Alternative B would be similar to those described for Alternative A. Road closures would reduce access to fires by ground initial attack resources, increasing initial attack response time. Fewer roads could be used as firelines, and larger fires may result with increased suppression costs. Road closures might also result in the need to build more firelines. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except more vehicle routes would be closed or limited. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative B, exmore vehicle routes would be closed or limited than in Alternative C. 

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 will offset the impacts from the potential loss of heavy equipment. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

4.19 Impacts on Wild Horses and Burros 

4.19.1 From Management of Special Area Designations 

No impacts are expected. Fencing burros out of Tule 

Creek ACEC would have a negligible effect. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except more areas would be specially designated. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB, but more areas thAlternative C would specially designated
364 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.19.2 From Lands and Realty Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

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 expe

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 would be similar to Alternative A, except for the Harquahala Mountain WHA allocation which would have no effect on the burros. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

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 would be similar to Alternative 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 are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

4.19.6 From Paleontological Resource Management

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.19.7 From Recreation Management 

Increasing OHV use can increase vehicle-burro conflicts and burro-human encounters, increasing the risk of injury to both people and burros. Increased vegetation disturbance from recreation uses could slightly reduce available forage. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except closing some vehicle routes could decrease the number of vehicle-burro conflicts. Areas allocated to nonmotorized settings could help minimize impacts to vegetation from motorized recreation, increasing available forage. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 
365 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.19.8 From Visual Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

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 sources, but competition for these sources and forage would continue. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except construction of fences or other barriers to restrict riparian grazing would also restrict burros. This could limit available forage and water, decrease available range size and increase competition. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Eliminating grazing would eliminate forand water competitibetween burros and livestock. Removal unneeded grazing improvements could decrease water sourbut may also allow burros to expand therange. 

4.19.10 From Minerals Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.19.11 From Fire Management 

No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

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 Alternative 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 are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

4.19.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

Increasing OHV use could increase the possibility of vehicle-burro conflicts and cause a loss of habitat. The amount of available forage could be slightly reduced. The incidence of burrohuman encounters could increase, intensifying the 

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 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 
366 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

risk of injury to people and burros. 

habitat. Burros could be harassed by visitors. Closing vehicle routes could decrease vehicleburro conflicts. Areas allocated to non-motorized settings could minimize impacts to vegetation from motorized recreation, and 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. Closing vehicle routes could decrease vehicle-burro conflicts. 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 are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 

4.20 Transportation and Public Access 4.20.1 From Special Area Designations 

The monument would be closed to cross-country motorized travel. Existing routes would remain open. 

No impacts are likely to 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except slightly more routes would be closed. 

Impacts in the monument are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except more routes would be closed (69.7% of routes 

Impacts in the monuwould be similar to Alternative B, exceponly 27.8%, of routewould remain open 
367 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

occur unless monument resources are damaged. Closing areas to protect monument resources could limit recreation. The Larry Canyon ACEC would remain closed and the Perry Mesa ACEC would limit motorized vehicles to designated routes. Five designated wilderness areas (96,820 acres) in BradshawHarquahala would remain closed to motorized vehicle use. Motorized use on the Harquahala Mountain Backcountry Byway would continue. Interpretation, staging areas, amenities, route markings and periodic maintenance would benefit transportation and access. 

Impacts of ACECs, wilderness areas, and Back Country byways are expected to be similar to Alternative A, except the Constellation Mine Road Backcountry Byway would positively affect the transportation network. Increased management would result in more 

positive visitor experiences, but use would also increase. 

This may negatively impact local residents. Improved management by signing, mapping and volunteers could lessen the impacts to local residents. 

would remain open). In Silver Creek ACEC, 0.45miles of route would be closed to protect Gila Chub. The Bloody Basin Road Backcountry Byway would improve the opportunity for touring in the monument. Increased use could add to noise, litter and dust although mitigation may decrease these impacts. Impacts of ACECs would be similar to Alternative B, except the Black Mesa ACEC would restrict travel on routes traveling directly to or through cultural Sites and the Vulture Mountains ACEC would prevent new vehicle routes. The Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC would also prevent new vehicle routes from being constructed. Travel in Jackrabbit wash would likely be closed which could impact some users. Wilderness areas and the Harquahala Mountain Summit Backcountry Byway would have impacts similar to 

new routes would nadded. Opportunitiemotorized recreation would be limited. TAgua Fria River RipCorridor ACEC Would be designatethe monument. In ACECs within Bradshaw-Harquaha412 miles of routes would be closed. Thquality and quantity motorized recreationopportunities would diminish significantThese closures coulto the disruption and disconnection of muroutes in the travel network. Impacts would be sito those described in Alternatives B and Cexcept Baldy MounONA ACEC, BelmoBig Horn MountainACEC, and Sheep Mountain RNA ACwould close more roAdditionally, VulturMountains ACEC wincrease by 3,320 acand Harquahala Mountains ACEC wincrease by 10,780a
368 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Alternative A. 

Wilderness areas anHarquahala MountaBackcountry Byway would have impacts similar to AlternativNominating the BlaCanyon Trail as NatRecreation Trail coupositively impact nonmotorized trail u

4.20.2 From Lands and Realty 

Authorizations would potentially expand the travel network as new rights of ways for private and state land access, and installation of new utilities continues. This would increase the route network less than 1% annually. Development of state and private lands could lead to the disruption or loss of public access. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

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. Examples of potential resources issues affecting private and state lands include fugitive dust and PM-10 emissions from public roads and OHV travel, soil erosion from hill 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except BLM would take direct action to lessen or avoid impacts on soil, water and air resources. The designation of routes, application of dust suppression technology, re-routing or closure of problem routes, application of buffer zones, SRMA prescriptions, and the improvement of 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB, except Alternativwould close more roand networks within sizeable areas of the Hieroglyphic MounSRMA and associatlocales. 
369 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

climbs and cross-country OHV travel, and changes in water courses or water quality due to OHV travel and the public use of nonengineered or poorly engineered travel routes. 

existing routes would reduce impacts. Potentially, route networks could be reduced to protect air, water and soil resources, but this would not be significant. 

4.20.4 From Biological Resources Management 

No impacts are expected. Transportation routes and 

public access would be reduced. ACECs would contribute to a decline in access but would increase preservation of biological resources. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 64,220 acres would be managed as WHAs which would limit access and vehicle routes that interfere with preservation of the habitat. This could shift transportation to other areas and concentrate vehicle usage on routes that remain open. 

Management would increase over Alternatives A and B. More area would be restricted from motorized transportation. Impacts of WHAs would be similar to Alternative B, except 157,180 acres would be managed as WHAs in BradshawHarquahala and 39,330 acres in the monument. 

This alternative wouclose the most area motorized access dubiological resource management and ACdesignation. Impacts of managinWHAs would be simto Alternative C, ex18,020 acres would managed as WHAs Bradshaw-Harquaha

4.20.5 From Cultural Resources Management 

Little impact is expected. A few specific vehicle travel routes could be closed to protect cultural sites or mitigate damage, but this would have little overall impact. 

Some routes could be closed for cultural site protection. Route connectivity could be diminished and the quality of vehicle-based recreation pursuits would decline. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except management could further reduce route availability if conflicts were determined. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaC. 
370 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4.20.6 From Paleontological Resource Management 

No impacts on expected. No impacts on expected. No impacts on expected. No impacts on expe

4.20.7 From Recreation Resource Management 

 The monument is closed to cross-country motorized travel. Closing routes to protect resources could limit motorized-recreation opportunities. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 2,240 miles of vehicle routes would remain open. Existing recreation opportunities would be unchanged. In some areas, route mileage would increase over the long-term as there is no limitation on motorized cross-country travel. These new routes would also expand into presently unroaded areas. 

Impacts in the monument would be similar to Alternative A, except 38 miles of existing routes would be closed. Users of these routes would be displaced to other areas within and outside the monument. Recreational opportunities for motorized users would be enhanced by creating loop trails. Developing connecting route networks would allow all types of users to enjoy activities with fewer user conflicts. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, up to 48 miles would be closed in designated ACECs. In the remainder of

the area, about 98% of existing routes would remain open. Up to 14 miles of new routes would mitigate losses from the closures and achieve better route connectivity. The total distance of open routes would eventually reach 2,100 miles. The overall effect would be to maintain 

Impacts in the monument would be similar to Alternative B, except 69.7%, of routes would remain open to Vehicular travel. Impacts in BradshawHarquahala would be similar to Alternative B, but Alternative C would close 382 miles of routes (mainly in ACECs and lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics). In the rest of the planning area, 1,889 miles of routes would remain open, and 382 miles of closures would be mitigated by up to 26 miles of new routes. The total distance of open routes would be 15% less than the existing routes. As a result, traditional users could be displaced and recreation opportunities diminished. 

Impacts in the monuwould be similar to Alternative B, excep27.8% of routes wouremain open and no routes would be addOpportunities for motorized recreation would be limited, as trails would not be developed. Impacts in BradshawHarquahala would bsimilar to Alternativexcept Alternative D would close 412 miroutes in ACECs anlands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. Motorized recreatioopportunities would lessened by enacting specific route, washarea closures. This cresult in disconnectiroutes. In the rest of the plaarea, 1,645 miles of routes would remain 
371 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

existing settings and opportunities. Limiting all mechanized vehicles to inventoried routes before completing the route designation process would eliminate cross-country OHV travel. This would not affect most users. Restricting vehicles to existing routes would prevent development of new routes. 

open, 723 miles wouclosed and 62 miles new routes developeThe total distance oroutes would represloss of 24% of the existing routes. 

4.20.8 From Visual Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. Designation of VRM I and 

II classes could affect route construction or cause realignment of existing routes. Class I designation would allow few major motorized routes. Nonmotorized routes would be easier to install. Class I and II designations could allow for routes in ACECs, but routes could be considerably restricted in ONAs with scenic values and landscapes. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 
372 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Installation of new travel routes within Class III and IV VRM class areas enable development of reasonable levels of access.

4.20.9 From Rangeland Management 

Little to no impact is expected. New rangeland developments might slightly increase access if routes are made available for public use. Closure of rangeland developments could eventually contribute to the loss of public access. Vandalism to livestock facilities from visitors could potentially lead to closure of routes. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.20.10 From Minerals Management 

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. Existing routes may be closed if active mining operations pose a threat to public health or safety. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.20.11 From Fire Management 

Some routes could be closed on a temporary basis due to fire suppression or controlled burns. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.20.12 From Wild Horse No impact is expected. No impact is expected. No impact is expected. No impact is expect
373 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

and Burro Management 4.20.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

The monument is closed to cross-country motorized travel, but existing routes are open. No impacts are likely to occur unless resources are found to be damaged. In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 2,240 miles of vehicle routes would remain open, and recreation would not be affected. Cross-country travel by some users could affect others by disrupting recreational and disturbing recreation settings. 

Most routes would remain open to vehicular travel in the monument. About 5 miles of new routes would be developed and 38 miles of existing routes would be closed which could diminish some opportunities for motorized recreation. In BradshawHarquahala 48 miles of routes in ACECs and lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics would be closed, which would decrease the opportunities of motorized recreationists but enhance the experience of nonmotorized users. 2,086 miles, or 98%, of routes would remain open. A total of 168 miles of routes would be closed and 14 miles of new routes would be established. The total distance of open routes would be 2,100 miles. The closures represent 6.3% of routes in the planning area.Limiting mechanized 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except: In the Monument, 50 miles of routes would be closed and about 6 miles of new routes would be developed. (129 miles, or 69.7%, of routes would remain open). In Bradshaw-Harquahala, 382 miles of routes would be closed in ACECs and lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. Up to 26 miles of new routes would be developed and 1,889 miles of routes would remain open. The total distance of open routes would be 1,915 miles or 15% less than the existing routes. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative B, exIn the Monument, nnew routes would badded and 122 milewould be closed. O47 miles, or 27.8%, routes would remain open to vehicular traLoop trails would ndeveloped. In BradshawHarquahala 412 milroutes would be cloACECs and lands allocated to maintaienhance wilderness characteristics. Roumight be closed to mresource managemeobjectives and settinIn the rest of the plaarea 1,645 miles of routes would remain open, and 723 miles potential closures wbe mitigated by developing 62 miles new routes. The total distance oopen routes would b1,706 miles, represea loss of 24% of the 
374 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

vehicles to inventoried routes would eliminate cross-country OHV travel. Cross-country travel would also be prohibited for game retrieval, potentially diminishing hunting opportunities. Restricting vehicles to existing routes would prevent development of new routes. 

existing routes. 

4.20.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts are expected. Impacts of route closures in 

areas allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics would slightly reduce the amount of lands open to vehiclebased and motorized recreation opportunities. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B except areas allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics are increased. Restrictions could be imposed on specific route, wash, or area closures, further diminishing opportunities for traditional motorized users. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative B excAlternative D propothe greatest number closed routes in landallocated to maintaienhance wilderness characteristics. Mod route systems wousignificantly reduceeliminated. 

4.21 Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics 

4.21.1 From Special Area Designations 

No identified management

actions are anticipated that would directly impact wilderness characteristics. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative A. 

4.21.2 From Lands and Realty 

No impacts are expected. 56,040 acres would be 

managed for wilderness characteristics. Impacts may have a minor effect on wilderness 

Impacts are the same as Alternative B, except 107,510 acres would be managed for wilderness characteristics. 

Impacts are the samAlternative B, excepseven areas totaling 91,480 acrewould be allocated fmanaging or enhanc
375 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

characteristics within the Harquahala Mountain range. Realty actions deemed incompatible with maintaining or enhancing wilderness characteristics, would not be allowed. 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.21.3 From Management of Soil, Air, and Water Resources 

Management actions to maintain or enhance water, soil, and air quality would help maintain wilderness characteristics and provide a more natural experience for recreationists. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.21.4 From Biological Resource Management 

Habitat improvements could enhance wildlife populations and viewing opportunities, increasing the experience of wilderness users. Ensuring connectivity of habitat for wildlife could result in route closures for motorized vehicles, which could help maintain wilderness characteristics by limiting the number of visitors who have access to these lands. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA. 

4.21.5 From Cultural Resource Management 

No impacts are expected. Potential route closures 

could be used to protect cultural sites. This could benefit wilderness characteristics by reducing in public access and increasing opportunities for 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 
376 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

solitude. Limiting group sizes at some cultural sites could maintain a more natural experience. 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 expe

4.21.7 From Recreation Resource Management 

Increasing intensity of recreation next to lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics could result in a loss of some of those values. Increasing numbers of non-motorized users could impair solitude opportunities and contribute to trailing and campsite use impacts. 

No SRMAs or RMZs 

would be allocated, which could further result in loss of wilderness characteristics along fringes. Increased number of SRPs 

Designating Front Country and Back Country RMZs could benefit wilderness characteristics through management of more intensive recreation uses. Opportunities for solitude would be enhanced in the Back Country RMZ. The restriction of motorized access could allow nonmotorized users to recreate in a more natural setting. This would assure the availability of areas offering outstanding primitive recreational and solitude opportunities. Reduction in lands 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except that further restrictions on motorized use, a larger Back Country RMZ, and fewer SRPs would offer more solitude opportunities and retain more wilderness characteristics. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaC, except for further restrictions on motorecreational use in thplanning areas, morBack Country RMZ acreage, and fewer SRPs. 
377 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

could lead to increased numbers of users and conflicts, further deteriorating opportunities to experience solitude and wilderness characteristics. 

available for competitive OHV events would help maintain opportunities to experience more natural settings. 

4.21.8 From Visual Resource Management 

The application of VRM Class III standards may eventually lead to some intrusions in to the visual landscape in or around lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

Management of lands allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics to VRM Class II would retain the current physical setting of 96,150 acres and enhance primitive recreational experiences. Design criteria would maintain the area with little to no visual impacts and would retain natural appearance and open space value. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except 134,920 acres would be managed to VRM Class II. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB, except 226,400 awould be managed tVRM Class I, which would require more stringent design crit

4.21.9 From Rangeland Management 

Impacts would be minimal. Site specific water projects, fencing, or vegetation projects may impact small areas and associated local recreational users. Potential visual resource impacts will be mitigated and consistent with the management and enhancement of wilderness characteristics. 

Impacts would be the similar to Alternative A 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A. 

No expected impact

4.21.10 From Minerals Management 

No impacts are expected in 

the monument. Wilderness characteristics could be impaired, decline 

Closing the allocation to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics to mineral material disposal would reduce the 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB, except wildernescharacteristics woulalso be closed to mi
378 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

or be foregone withIn Bradshaw-Harquahala in areas not afforded protection of their wilderness characteristics. 

potential area for ground disturbance and maintain primitive open space. 

and geothermal leasand mineral entry. Tmay impact the abilmeet future demandwould further maintprimitive open spac

4.21.11 From Fire Management 

No impacts are expected No impacts are expected No impacts are expected. No impacts are expe

4.21.12 From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No impacts are expected No impacts are expected No impacts are expected No impacts are expe

4.21.13 From Management of Transportation and Public Access 

No impacts are expected in 

the monument. In Bradshaw-Harquahala road and route development, access rightsof-way and other developments requiring roads could adversely affect wilderness characteristics. 

Adverse impacts on wilderness characteristics would be of a lesser scale than described under Alternative A. 

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B, except adverse impacts would be of a lesser degree than described under Alternatives A or B. 

Impacts would be sito those described uAlternative B, excepadverse impacts on wilderness charactewould be considerabless than estimated uAlternatives A, B or 

4.21.14 From Management of Wilderness Characteristics 

Primitive or semi-primitive non-motorized settings would likely be maintained due to the management guidelines set forth in the Monument Proclamation. Wilderness characteristics could be impaired, decline or be foregone withIn Bradshaw-Harquahala in areas not afforded protection of their wilderness characteristics. 

Allocation of wilderness characteristics would reduce access of motorized users. Nonmotorized uses would increase. These nonmotorized individuals would be able to recreate in a more natural and remote setting. Wilderness characteristics would be maintained or enhanced over the long term for proposed WSR suitable segments, ACECs 

Non-motorized users would benefit more than under Alternative B as additional lands are allocated to maintaining or enhancing wilderness characteristics. Loss of wilderness characteristics would be minimal under Alternative C. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative C, ex91,480 acres would managed to maintaienhance wilderness characteristics. This alternative would designate some of thareas described undAlternatives B and C ONA ACECs. 
379 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

and ONA ACECs. 

4.22 Impacts on Social and Economic Conditions 4.22.1 Planning Area Growth and Development 

Recreation Related Impacts Designating the monument 

will likely result in increased visitor use. Activities that might be less available in the monument might place greater demands on surrounding lands. Use of land in the 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. 

Impacts would be similar to Alterative A, but development of recreation facilities would be encouraged to improve recreational experiences, resulting in increase visitation and use. Protection of biological and cultural resources would enhance the quality of experiences and increase visitation. 2,100 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 or enhance wilderness characteristics would attract visitors seeking more primitive experiences. Designation of Bloody Basin and Constellation Mine Roads as Back Country Byways could increase visitation. 

Primitive recreation would be favored in the monument. The number of commercial and guide/outfitter permits would be about half of those than under Alternative B. Public access to cultural resources would also be more limited. Public access in Bradshaw-Harquahala would also be more restrictive than Alternatives 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 Alternative than for Alternatives A or B but greater than Alternative D. Designation of Bloody Basin Road and Constellation Mine Road would have impacts as similar to Alternative B. 

The emphasis on nonmotorized recreawould reduce visitatmore than any other alternative by closinmost vehicle routes. motorized competitiraces would be authorized. Public access to culresources would be limited than any othalternative. Visitatiand OHV use would decline, resulting in somewhat lower visspending. If this loss is offset bincreased nonmotorrecreation, the diffebetween the impacts Alternative D and thother alternatives wnot be so great. 1,707 miles of routewould be designated use of trails would blimited. SCRMAs wbe reduced to two, tnumber of areas alloto maintain or enhan
380 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 Alternative A. 

1,915 miles of routes would be designated. SCRMAs would be reduced to four, lands allocated to maintain or enhance 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 recreational use would be the same as Alternative A. 

wilderness charactewould increase to siand eight ACECs wbe designated. Visitand related spending would likely declinealthough some communities would continue to benefit. 

Ranching, Agriculture, and Livestock ProductionRelated Impacts 

Increases in population and urbanization have resulted in loss of agricultural land and increased conflicts with 

Impacts are expected to be the similar to Alternative A except that grazing in riparian areas would be 

Impacts are expected to be the similar to Alternative B except livestock grazing is 

Closing BLM lands grazing would significantly affect holders of grazing le
381 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

farm and ranch operations. Livestock production on BLM land contributes to the local economy. Prohibiting grazing in the Larry Canyon ACEC and the WSR eligible/suitable areas has minimal impact on production and the economic impacts would not change. 

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. 

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. 

local economies, anreduce livestock production in the sta

Minerals-Related Impacts 

Locatable Minerals The monument is closed to 

all forms of mineral entry. Bradshaw-Harquahala would generally be left open to mineral location and development. Should 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 will allow continued use by these groups, and the 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, except Alternative B would be the most encouraging to mineral development. Tule Creek ACEC would be closed to mineral 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. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, except for the closure of 3 ACECs and riparian areas. This could result in some economic limitations. 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 Alternative B, but be less than those under Alternative D. 

This alternative woutend to more or less eliminate mining viattrition over the duof the plan. It would reduce mining-relatadditions to the locaregional economies, thereby limiting economic opportunimore than the other alternatives. Impacts would be sito Alternative C, bumore acreage would closed to mining, anmore areas would bclassified as VRM I II. 
382 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

possibility of expansion to new areas. 

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 would be similar to Alternative A, except Tule Creek ACEC and two areas allocated to maintain or enhance 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 would be similar to Alternative A, except ACECs and areas allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics would be closed to mineral material sales. These areas would be larger than in Alternative A or B. 

Impacts would be sito Alternative C, exmore acres would bclosed to mineral material sales. In thshort term, demand expected to be met bnonfederal and fedeproduction. But futdemand may not be Increased costs of importing building material will increasbuilding costs in all of the economy. 

Leasable Minerals No known viable sources 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 

PFO boundary. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, except Tule Creek ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing which would have a negligible impact. 

Impacts are expected to be the similar to Alternative A except mineral leasing would be prohibited in four ACECs and on scattered lands outside the planning area. 

Impacts are expectebe the similar to Alternative A excepmineral leasing wouprohibited in a numbACECs and lands allocated to maintaienhance wilderness characteristics. 
383 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative 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 Alternative 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 Alternative A, except the corridor would be narrowed to move it out of the monument. 

No BLM land woulavailable for disposThis would have no measurable impacts potential growth or availability of land fdevelopment. Retaiall BLM land may contribute to maintarural lifestyles in soparts of the planning area. Reduction in the levcorridors would supcontinued growth bumay somewhat conssiting of potential utin the future. 

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 expe

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 will result in economic changes. 54,370 acres of BLM land would be available for disposal by sale or 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, but 58,400 acres would be available for disposal. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, but 49,100 acres would be available for disposal. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA, even though BLM would make no land available for dispos
384 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

exchange, but this is not expected to be a significant growth-inducing action and so there would be no measurable cumulative impact. However, growth would continue to impact resources on BLM land. 

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. 

Impacts are expected to increase over those in Alternative A since visitation is expected to increase the most in this alternative. The trend toward non-motorized recreation in urban areas would be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to decrease as compared Alternatives 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 Alternatives A and B, but greater than under Alternative D.

Impacts are expectedecrease more than Alternative C, as thialternative would dethe most area to nonmotorized recreaand close more areavehicular access. Visitation is expectebe the lowest and so cumulative affects wbe least. 

Air Quality Cumulative air quality 

impacts have been addressed by air quality non-attainment plans and maintenance plans prepared by MAG and ADEQ. -It is possible that increased OHV use would cause increased fugitive dust impacts immediately near the roads and trails. But future OHV emissions 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, except the miles of trails open to recreation would decrease by 3%. Air quality impacts on the region would be minimal. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, even though miles of trails open to recreation would decrease by 4%. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaA, although OHV emissions and particulates in rural would possibly be legiven more restrictioon areas open to OHuse and competitive events. 
385 

Resource 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

would probably decline and contribute a proportionately smaller fraction of emissions. 

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 are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe the least of all Alternatives given trecreation and mininwould be more restrand grazing would bprohibited. 

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 alternative, these activities would continue. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts are expectebe less than those unother alternatives, gthat recreation and mining would be morestricted and grazinwould be prohibited

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

No noticeable cumulative 

affects are expected. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A, even though the Harquahala HA would not be a managed herd. 

Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative B. 

Impacts are expectebe similar to AlternaB. 
386 
Chapter Three
Chapter 3 

388 

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 PFO. 

3.2 Special Area 

Designations 

3.2.1 Introduction 

Special Area Designations are areas, which have 

special values that warrant or require special 

management or protection. These areas, which 

will be 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 lands in the BradshawHarquahala 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 than normal 

level of concern and protection. A designation 

of ACEC on BLM's managed lands requires 

approval by the Arizona State Director, who can 

also remove the designation. Once an ACEC is 

designated, the focus 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.
389 

3.2.4 Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

BLM is an active participant in managing 

designated wild and 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 developing one of the most 

important systems of late prehistoric 

archaeological sites in central Arizona. 

However, 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 (Table 3-1). 

Additionally, portions of the Hassayampa River 

were identified as possibly suitable for further 

study in the wild and scenic river evaluation 

process. However, in the preferred 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. However, in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, the 

Harquahala Mountain Summit Road Scenic 

Drive has been 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 portions 

of the federally owned land it manages for the 

benefit of the national interest. Land tenure 

decisions select lands for retention, proposed 

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. 
390 

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 ands. 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. The 

monument is also protected from disposition 

under all laws relating to mineral and 

geothermal leasing, other than by exchange. 

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. 

3.3.3 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

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 

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% 
391 

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 highway, railroad, 

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 58,400 acres within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area have been determined 

to be suitable for disposal. More than 100,000 

acres in the Bradshaw-Harquahala 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-ofWay 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 BradshawHarquahala Planning Area are listed in Table 3-3 

and shown in Map 2-7). 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. 

Table 3-3. Existing Utility Corridors 

Corridor 

Name 

Width Current 

Utility/Transportation 

Uses 

Black 

Canyon 

2 miles Electricity, Gas 

WickenburgYarnell 1 mile Transportation 

MeadePhoenix 1 mile Electricity 

ParkerLiberty 2 

miles/varies 

Electricity 

Palo VerdeDevers 1 mile Electricity 

CAP Canal 1 mile Water 

Palo VerdeWest Wing 1 mile Electricity 

WendenWickenburg 1 mile Transportation 
392 

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 Figure 2-2, 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 BradshawHarquahala 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) Long Range Transportation Plan 2002 

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). 

The MAG Northwest Area Transportation Study 

is underway. In its draft form, it shows a “rural 

expressway/highway” at the above-described 

CANAMEX corridor location. It also explores 

the possibility of an expressway beginning at 

339th Avenue and I-10 and proceeding north 

and then east at roughly the Patton Road 

alignment. That corridor (if adopted in the final 

MAG Northwest study) would lie 2 to 5 

miles southeast of most BLM's lands in western 

Maricopa County. Such a corridor should be 

monitored for its eventual importance as part of 

the network to access BLM's lands. 

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. 

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 
393 

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, in 1930, occurred near 

Constellation, Arizona. 

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. The 

Hummingbird Springs and Big Horn Mountains 

Wilderness Areas, and White Tank Mountain 

Regional Park, however, 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 Quality (ADEQ) 

regulates air quality in the State and has adopted 

the Federal NAAQS as State standards. 

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 
394 

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 develops 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 offroad 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 SIP 

(ADEQ 2002a). However, Maricopa County is 

considered a nonattainment area for three 

criteria pollutants, including PM10, 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 PM 10 

On June 10, 1996, EPA reclassified Maricopa 

County as being in serious nonattainment for 

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 

PM-10 (Executive Summary)(MAG 1999). This 

plan addressed both the 24-hour and annual 

PM10 standards. In February 2000, MAG 

submitted a revised PM10 nonattainment plan. 

That plan requested that EPA extend Phoenix’s 

PM10 attainment date to December 31, 2006. 

ADEQ submitted a SIP revision of the 

Agricultural PM-10 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 PM-10 

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 5 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. 
395 

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. 

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 3 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 May 15, 2001, 

EPA determined that Maricopa County had 

reached attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. EPA must receive and approve a 

maintenance plan showing how the area will 

maintain compliance with the standard for the 

next 10 years, before EPA can redesignate 

Maricopa County as an attainment area. 

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 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

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 
396 

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 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 Bradshaw-Harquahala 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 
397 

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 north-central portions of the 

planning area. Pinyon-juniper and desert scrub 

grasslands are predominant in this planning 

area's north 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's 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 
398 

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. 

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 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). 

Federally listed endangered, threatened, and 

candidate species, which are not known to 

presently occur within the planning areas, but 

were historically recorded there or for which 

suitable habitat exists, include cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium 

brasilianum cactorum) and spikedace (Meda 

fulgida). 

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 3-feet in length and 

has a 6 to 7-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. They have been observed nesting at the 

north end of Lake Pleasant for many years. 

They are occasionally observed along the 

portion of the Agua Fria River above Lake 

Pleasant as far north as Cordes Junction within 

Agua Fria National Monument. 

3.5.5.2 Cactus Ferruginous 

Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium 

brasilianum cactorum) 

The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl is a small 

owl, typically weighing 2.3 to 3.2 ounces and 

having a wingspan of 13 to 15 inches. It is 

federally listed as endangered. This owl has 

generally been found in Sonoran Desert 

habitat (1) in river bottom woodlands containing 

large mesquites with cavities or (2) in ephemeral 
399 

washes with large columnar cactus, paloverdes, 

and other components of mixed desert scrub. 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls were 

historically found in central and southern 

Arizona, including in riparian drainages and 

semi-desert grassland vegetation communities, 

similar to those throughout the planning areas. 

The decline in the numbers of owls has been 

attributed to the urbanization of the species’ 

historic range, and the resulting degradation and 

habitat loss along Arizona’s riparian 

corridors. Extensive surveys for this species 

have not been completed within the planning 

areas. The nearest recent record of this is 

from the Picacho Mountains, 75 miles southeast 

of the planning areas. The planning areas are 

considered outside the current range of this 

species. 

3.5.5.3 Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus) 

A small (5.75 inches), generally olive-colored 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 nested in the Hassayampa River 

Preserve, south of Wickenburg, for the past 

several years. In 2004, it was documented as 

nesting 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. 

3.5.5.4 Western Yellowbilled 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. 

3.5.5.5 Desert Pupfish 

(Cyprinodon macularius) 

The desert pupfish is a small (less than 2 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 
400 

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; 

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, where they continue to exist. 

3.5.5.6 Gila Chub (Gila 

intermedia) 

The Gila chub is a small-finned, deep-bodied 

minnow that was proposed for listing as 

endangered in 2002, with a designation of 

critical habitat. If it is listed, the critical habitat 

designation could include portions of Silver, 

Larry, Lousy Canyon, and Indian Creeks. 

Portions of these creeks, tributaries of the Agua 

Fria River, are within the national monument. 

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). Grazing in adjacent uplands and high 

levels of recreation can degrade the remaining 

Gila chub habitat. Additionally, competition 

or predation by introduced non-native 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. 

3.5.5.7 Gila Topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis) 

The federally listed endangered Gila topminnow 

is a small, guppy-like, live-bearing 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. Gila topminnow populations exist at 

all three of these locations. 

Reintroduction efforts are ongoing and may 

include perennial streams and springs within the 

planning areas. 

3.5.5.8 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, 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 
401 

historic habitat that could still support a 

spikedace population with active management. 

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 4 bats, 13 birds, and 5 reptiles 

or amphibians on the State list. Most of these 

species depend on riparian habitats. 

In accordance with BLM's Manual 6840, the 

BLM's State Director, in concert 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 bat, three bird, three reptile, 

and three native fish species. 

All of the wildlife of special concern in 

Arizona's and BLM's sensitive species, within 

the planning areas, is listed as priority species in 

Appendix H. 

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. 

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), has been federally listed as threatened. 

BLM has worked cooperatively to complete a 

management plan to stabilize the Sonoran 

population of the desert tortoise, which inhabits 

these planning areas and is considered a 

sensitive species by BLM and the AGFD. 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. 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: 

• 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 
402 

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 93,600 acres of 

desert tortoise habitat classified as Category I, 

429,400 acres classified as Category II and 

136,980 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 soft-shell 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 Phoenix Field 

Office 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. 
403 

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 BLM-administered 

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 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. 
404 

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 BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, including slightly 

more than 200 BLM-administered 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. 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 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 highquality 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. 
405 

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 PimaMaricopa, 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 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 AfricanAmerican 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 

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
406 

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 Field Office 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 EuroAmerican 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. 

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 fastgrowing 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 first-come, first-served basis. BLM 

issued 57 SRPs in 2004, 
407 

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 Field Office 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 lands. In 

the Agua Fria National Monument, dispersed 

camping is allowed in most areas. Popular sites 

lie along the network of roads and off 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. 
408 

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 1981 Section 603 

wilderness inventory findings--these 

findings are the wilderness inventory for 

public lands in the planning areas. 

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. These lands were acquired and 

placed in public ownership after 1976, and have 

never been examined for the presence of 

wilderness characteristics. Wilderness 

characteristics are found in four 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, and 

• Perry Mesa, centered on Larry and 

Lousy Canyons. 

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), and 

Black Butte. The following areas, formerly 

Section 603 Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

lands, were determined to be natural and to have 

wilderness characteristics (Map 3-12): 
409 

• Harquahala Mountains, 

• Big Horn Mountains, and 

• Hassayampa River Canyon/Round 

Mountain areas. 

These areas were essentially in the same 

condition as reported by the Section 603 

wilderness inventory in 1981. 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, the Black Butte 

area, and a part of the Hieroglyphic Mountains 

named Baldy Mountain were also examined for 

wilderness characteristics in response to public 

scoping comments. BLM examined these areas 

and determined that 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. 

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 BradshawHarquahala 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-of-way. 

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 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. 

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 
410 

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 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 BradshawHarquahala Planning Area has 91 BLMauthorized 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. 

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. 
411 

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 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 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 Field Office 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-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 block-faulted mountain 

ranges separated by deep, alluvium-filled basins. 

 Mountain ranges in the planning area generally 

consist of Precambrian (Proterozoic) to Tertiary 
412 

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'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. 

There are no known viable sources of leasable 

minerals in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area, but all land in the area is now open to 

mineral leasing. Sites north of the planning area 

within the BLM PFO do have some potential for 

exploration. 

Geothermal energy resource potential exists 

throughout the planning area. A high potential 

for occurrence exists for using low-temperature 

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 3-17. 

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. 

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 

interest. However, areas of moderate oil and gas 

potential do exist (Map 3-17). 

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. 
413 

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, volcanicepithermal, 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 Bradshaw-Harquahala 

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 3-20. 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. 

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 
414 

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. 

Management zones divide the Southwest 

Area for local management coordination and 

mobilization of firefighting resources. The two 

planning areas are within the Central West 

Zone. 

Both planning areas are within the PhoenixKingman Fire Zone. BLM's Phoenix and 

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). 

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). 

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 (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's 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 effects of unplanned 

wildland fires and meet resource objectives. 

Additionally, they will 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 Free-Roaming 

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, herd areas 

were found to surround Lake Pleasant and to 

occur in the area spanning the Harquahala and 

Big Horn Mountains. Agua Fria National 
415 

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 plan for the 

Lake Pleasant HMA. 

The Lake Pleasant HMA 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 is located in western 

Maricopa County within the Harquahala 

Management Unit. It contains portions of the 

Harquahala, Big Horn, 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 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) recently conducted found 

that the Harquahala burro herd is not 

manageable as a sustainable herd over the long 

term. The Lake Pleasant HMA, 

containing 80,800 acres, and the Harquahala 

HA, containing 156,255 acres, 

are both entirely within the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area. 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. 

Burros and horses move either by wandering or 

by managed transportation (either drives or use 

of vehicles). BLM’s policy is that gathered 

animals are either adopted out of the Federal 

system or transported to holding facilities or 

sanctuaries in the Midwest. 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 is 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 
416 

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. 

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 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. 

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 
417 

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). 

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. 

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 
418 

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 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 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 

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. 
419 

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. 

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 self-housed, 

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 Ranching-Agriculture 

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

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 
420 

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, 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 shows minority 

populations by different areas in the planning 

areas. 

The planning areas were analyzed at a blockgroup level to determine where higher-thanaverage minority populations lived. Minority 

populations were identified in the BradshawHarquahala 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.
421 

 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 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 6 

percent. 

The percentage of Hispanics in the Phoenix 

HRU (27 percent) exceeds the Maricopa County 

percentage of Hispanics (25 percent) by 2 

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 3 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 BradshawHarquahala 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. In 

the Wickenburg HRU, both the Aguila CRU (20 

percent) and Yarnell CRU (16 percent) exceed 

the county level by 8 percent and 4 percent, 

respectively. While the Prescott HRU is lower

Table 3-13. Persons Below Poverty Level

Persons Below Poverty 

Level (BPL) Arizona 

Maricopa 

County 

Yavapai 

County Wickenburg 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. 
422 

than that of the county’s, in the Prescott HRU, 

the Agua Fria CRU (15 percent) exceeds the 

county level by 3 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 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. 
423 

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 Transportation 

and Public Access 

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 inventory can be found on maps 3-21, 3-

22, 3-23, 3-24 3-25, 3-26. 

Upon completion of the Resource Management 

Plan, 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. 
424 

Table 3-14. Summary of Hazardous Materials Sites on BLM 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 Four 

 
Chapter 4 

426

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 2005. For items that were analyzed 

over time, the analysis was carried out 

to 2025. 

• County populations for 2005 and 2025 

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 2025, 

this RMP uses the Maricopa Association 

of Governments (MAGs) interim 

projections by Municipal Planning Area 

(MPA) in Maricopa County. For the 

year 2025, 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 

427

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 1 to 5 years of 

implementing the activity. Long-term 

impacts are those that would occur after 

the first 5 years of implementation. 

• Recreational use in the planning areas 

would continue to increase. A visitor 

use 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. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands: There are no 

prime or unique farmlands or farmlands of 
Chapter 4 

428

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 Area 

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 8 

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 Area 

Designations 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Alternative A would create no new special area 

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 

429

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 connectivety. 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. 

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts from designating the Bloody Basin 

Road and Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn 

Mine Road Back Country Byways would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B. 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 

430

segments suitable for wild and scenic river 

status. 

Impacts on designated wilderness from 

establishing the Harquahala Mountain ONA 

ACEC would be similar to those described for 

Alternative C. 

4.6.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management 

 Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Preferred 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 eligible 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. 

4.6.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 
Chapter 4 

431

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 

eligible segments of the WSR in the Agua Fria 

River. Other controls on vehicle routes and 

recreation site development where wildlife 

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 area 

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 
Chapter 4 

432

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

The Harquahala Mountains ONA 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 

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 
Chapter 4 

433

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 (Preferred 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

(Preferred 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 eligible 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 

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, 
Chapter 4 

434

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 or enhance 

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 23,088 acres 

of the allocation to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics. 

No SRP-related impacts to wilderness areas, 

ACECs, or back country byways are expected. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B. 

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. 

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. 
Chapter 4 

435

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 106,990 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 (Preferred 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 or proposed back 

country byways, or to Tule Creek ACEC are 

expected. 

Managing Harquahala Mountain ONA to VRM 

Class I objectives would benefit the adjacent 

Harquahala Mountains, Big Horn Mountains, 

and Hummingbird Springs Wilderness Areas by 

minimizing visual intrusions into the landscape. 

Impacts of managing the Black Butte ONA to 

Class I objectives would be similar. 

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 area 

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 

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 
Chapter 4 

436

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 eligible 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 (Preferred 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 back country byways 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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

437

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be the similar to those under 

Alternative D. 

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 

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 (Preferred 

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. 
Chapter 4 

438

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 (Preferred 

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 

Transportation and Public 

Access 

Alternative A (No Action) 

No impacts are expected from current 

management of transportation and public access 

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 transportation and public 

access 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. 

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. 
Chapter 4 

439

Impacts on suitable WSR segments would be the 

same as for Alternative A. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts on special area designations from 

management of transportation and public 

access would be similar to those described 

for Alternatives B and C. 

4.6.14 from Management of 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred) 

The management of certain lands to maintain or 

enhance 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 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 nonmotorized 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's 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 BradshawHarquahala 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 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 

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's 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's 

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. 
Chapter 4 

440

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's 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's 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 BLM's 

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. 

4.7.1 From Special Area 

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 area designations generally constrain 

lands and realty activities in the following ways: 

• limiting the lands open to exchange or 

disposal in any zone, 
Chapter 4 

441

• 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 area 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-of-way, easements, 

withdrawals, or other land tenure actions. At the 

most, the activity might be prohibited altogether. 

None of the proposed special area 

designations are located in areas slated for 

development between 2005 and 2025 in 

Maricopa, Yavapai, or La Paz Counties. None 

of the special area 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 area designations are 

generally a part of the open space designated in 

the general plans of the counties and 

municipalities. Therefore, the special area 

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 2 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 

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 
Chapter 4 

442

lands could have to use a more circuitous and 

potentially more expensive route. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts are the same as under Alternative A. 

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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

443

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 (Preferred 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. 

Land use authorizations (including rights-ofway, communication site leases, and utility 

corridors) would be the same as Alternative B. 

4.7.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E 

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. 
Chapter 4 

444

4.7.4 From Biological 

Resource Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Preferred 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

(Preferred 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 (Preferred 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

(Preferred Alternative) 

Recreation management would not affect lands 

and realty management under any of the 

Alternatives. 

4.7.8 From Visual Resource 

Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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

(Preferred Alternative) 

Rangeland management would not have any 

expected impacts on lands and realty 

management under any of the Alternatives.
Chapter 4 

445

4.7.10 From Minerals 

Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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

(Preferred 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

(Preferred 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 

Transportation and Public 

Access 

Alternative A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Preferred 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 characterisitcs. 

Resulting in no expected impacts. 

Alternatives B, C, D and E (Preferred 

Alternative) 

In any proposed Alternative, the allocations to 

maintain or enhance 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. 

4.8 Impacts on Soil 

Resources 

4.8.1 From Special Area 

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 eligible 

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 
Chapter 4 

446

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 eligible 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 244,090 

acres are proposed; impacts to soil resources 

would be similar to those under Alternative C. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts from the special area 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; 

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 
Chapter 4 

447

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. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

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. 

Under the current management of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area no impacts are 

expected on soil resources. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

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 
Chapter 4 

448

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 (Preferred 

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

(Preferred 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

(Preferred 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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

449

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. 

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 or enhance 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. 

Soil erosion from improper events and OHVuse 

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. 

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 42,410 acres of Front 

Country RMZ and 70 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 or enhance 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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

450

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 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. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

In this alternative, 57,200 acres would be 

allocated to Back Country, 12,440 to Front 

Country, and 1,300 acres to Passage RMZs. 

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 

and 1 mile of new route built. 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. 

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 or enhance wilderness characteristics 

and the Harquahala Mountains and Black Butte 

ONAs. 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. 

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. 

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 activity that causes the most 
Chapter 4 

451

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 will 

inevitably lead to unacceptable cumulative soil 

impacts, perhaps most notably in previously 

undisturbed areas. 

Limited staffing will 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 will become more visible and 

larger gullies will form due to poor drainage 

during heavy rains. Routes used for the racing 

activities will 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 

will be created at curves and corners which will 

lead to increased wind and water erosion. Areas 

with finer soils will be especially affected and 

difficult to rehabilitate. Even with close 

monitoring and rehabilitation efforts, due to the 

arid desert conditions, once 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 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 

will be scrutinized and permit activities closely 

monitored so 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% 

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. Only 

one new race would be allowed in the Stanton 

and San Domingo SRMAs making management 
Chapter 4 

452

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 (Preferred 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 

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

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts expected to soils from 

management for Visual Resources. 

4.8.9 From Rangeland 

Management 

Many studies suggest watersheds exposed to 

moderate grazing generally have decreased 

vegetation cover, increased rates of soil 

compaction, and lower infiltration rates resulting 

in increased run-off during precipitation (Beeson 

and Doyle 1995; Bull 1997; Clifton 1989; 

DeBano and Schmidt 1989; Graf 1979; 

Kauffman et al. 1983; Myers and Swanson 

1993; Rush et al. 1997; Rutherfurd et al. 1995; 

Ryan 1992). Increased run-off and the resulting 

increased erosion can deliver excess sediment 

into streams. The loss of stabilizing vegetation 

reduces soil moisture and soil productivity. 

Where grazing is permitted in riparian areas, 

cattle trampling can also destabilize 

streambanks, creating more sediment sources 

near the stream channel. 

Other studies in the inter-mountain West found 

that livestock trampling lowers infiltration rates 

but that sediment yields remain uniform after 

vegetation cover reaches 50 percent (Dadkhah 

and Gifford 1980). Additionally, in semiarid 

and arid settings, soil compaction might be 

offset by soil loosening from invertebrates (e.g. 

termites and ants) where enough plant litter is 

maintained to support large invertebrate 

populations (Whitford et al. 1995). 

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 
Chapter 4 

453

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 

In Agua Fria National Monument expected 

impacts to soil resources from rangeland/grazing 

management in uplands 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts for both areas would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B. 

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 
Chapter 4 

454

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. 

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

In both planning areas soil impacts from mining 

are expected to be similar to those under 

Alternative A, except that the closure to mineral 

disposal in ONAs and allocations to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics would reduce 

the potential for mining-related soil disturbance. 

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. 

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. 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 
Chapter 4 

455

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. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Impacts are similar to those described in 

Alternative A, except that fire use would be 

allowed in adapted ecosystems. When lightning 

fires occur, larger wildfires could be allowed to 

occur, resulting in short term increases in soil 

loss. 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. 

4.8.12 From Wild Horse and 

Burro Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 

Transportation and Public 

Access 

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 

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

456

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, 38 miles of route would be 

closed and 5 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 or enhance 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. 

Alternative C

Impacts on the national monument would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative B. In 

the monument, 50 miles of route would be 

closed and 6 miles of new route would be built. 

Moreover, this net reduction of 44 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 or enhance 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. 

Alternative D

Impacts on the national monument would be 

similar to those discussed in Alternative C. In 

the monument, 122 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 or enhance 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 (Preferred 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 

and one mile of new route built. The net 

reduction of routes would be 69 miles. 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 or enhance wilderness characteristics 

and the Harquahala Mountains and Black Butte 

ONAs. Curtailing or reducing vehicle use in the 

above areas would benefit soil resources by 

eventually reducing the potential for soil 
Chapter 4 

457

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. In these areas soil disturbances, 

compaction, and erosion caused by human 

induced activities would be reduced. 

Alternative C

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B

except that 107,510 acres would be allocated for 

the management of wilderness 

characteristics. Soil disturbance created by these 

designations would be reduced the most in this 

alternative. 

Alternative D

Impacts would be same as Alternative B except 

that 91,480 acres would be allocated for the 

management of wilderness characteristics. This 

alternative would provide more protection than 

Alternative B, but less than Alternatives C and E. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B

except that 96,420 acres would be allocated for 

the management of wilderness characteristics. 

Soil protection as a result of these designations 

would be more than Alternatives B and D, but 

less than Alternative C. 

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 much 

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. Therefore, one 

can reasonably conclude that OHVs cause 

elevated air pollutant concentrations 

immediately near the routes on which they 

operate but that OHVs are unlikely to contribute 

to any meaningful regional air quality impacts 

that would affect the Phoenix nonattainment 

area or sensitive areas downwind of Phoenix. 
Chapter 4 

458

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. But recently enacted Federal 

emission limits for OHVs would ensure that the 

tailpipe emissions from individual OHVs would 

decrease in the future. Therefore, countywide 

nitrogen oxides emissions from OHVs could 

decrease in the future if the emission reductions 

from individual OHVs more than offset the 

increase in the number of OHVs operating. 

General Conformity Regulatory Requirements 

Each of the Alternatives specifies a different set 

of parcels that would be suitable for land 

disposal. Land disposal in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area is a Federal action 

that is subject to the Federal General Conformity 

air quality regulations, if the land disposal 

triggers induced population growth that would 

increase regional air emissions in the Phoenix 

nonattainment areas for ozone and PM10. If the 

General Conformity rule applies, BLM is 

required to implement one of the following 

actions: 

• Through discussions with the Maricopa 

Association of Governments (MAG) 

and the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 

confirm that MAG has already 

accounted for population growth and 

emissions from the land disposal parcels 

inside the nonattainment area and that 

MAG has included those emissions in 

its nonattainment area plans that are 

periodically submitted to Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. 

• If induced growth emissions from the 

disposal parcels have not been included 

in the MAG Nonattainment Area Plans, 

BLM must implement emission offsets 

for the entire induced emissions from 

parcels inside the nonattainment areas. 

Forecast Land Disposal Population Growth and 

Emissions 

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 

Table 4-1. Estimated Emissions from Countywide OHV Use

PM10 Emissions Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions 

County 

Annual OHV 

Trips 

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 PM10 Emissions 

(Year 2001) 

79,500(5) Total NOx Emissions 

(Year 1999) 

81,000(6)

Example calculation (NOx emissions within Maricopa County)

NOx emission factor = 0.14 lbs per 25-mile ORV trip 

Maricopa County ORV usage = 2,087,000 trips/year 

Annual 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 

459

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 Table 4-2 lists air emissions only in 

the Phoenix nonattainment area. More 

population growth and emission increases would 

occur outside the nonattainment areas. As 

described later in this section, emission increases 

outside the nonattainment area have been 

accounted for in MAG air quality analyses. 

It is not clear whether residential development of 

BLM land disposal parcels represents "induced 

growth" subject to General Conformity. The air 

quality agencies (MAG, ADEQ, and EPA) are 

aware of the upcoming land developments, and 

they have already accounted for the population 

growth in their air quality plans to improve 

regional air quality. BLM consulted with 

MAG and confirmed that MAG has already 

accounted for population growth and emissions 

from BLM's land disposal parcels within and 

outside the nonattainment area. MAG assumes 

that each BLM parcel would become fully 

developed according to the same time schedule 

and residential density as all other marketable 

parcels in the respective RAZ. MAG then 

estimates the residential emissions from all 

parcels (including BLM's) and uses the 

emissions to model air quality concentrations. 

The emission estimates and air quality modeling 

have been included in MAG's most recent 

nonattainment and maintenance plans. 

Estimated emissions from population and 

transportation for the combined land disposal 

parcels inside the nonattainment areas exceed 

the General Conformity applicability 

thresholds: 50 tons/year of NOx; and 70 

tons/year of PM10. Thus, if one assumes that the 

population residing on the land disposal parcels 

is “induced growth,” BLM's land disposal for 

each Alternative requires a General Conformity 

analysis. The required analysis is presented 

below. 

General Conformity Analysis: Air Quality 

Impacts of Land Disposal 

As described previously, land disposal would 

allow residential development on now-rural 

parcels, thereby contributing to regional 

population growth and regional air pollutant 

emissions. BLM's land disposal actions might 

be determined to trigger Federal General 

Conformity air quality requirements. In any 

case BLM's actions satisfy the General 

Conformity requirements for the following 

reasons: 

• MAG and ADEQ have already 

accounted for full residential 

development of BLM's parcels within 

and outside the nonattainment areas. 

The population, vehicle travel, and 

emissions from each BLM parcel have 

been assumed to increase under the 

same schedule and intensity as the 

neighboring parcels. 

• The future increases of emissions from 

BLM parcels inside the nonattainment 

areas have been directly accounted for. 

The emissions from each one-acre 

gridded parcel have been included in 

MAG's periodic emission inventories 

and air quality modeling used to show 

future improvements in ambient 

concentrations as part of the 

nonattainment plans and maintenance 

plans approved by EPA. 

• Future emission increases for parcels 

outside the nonattainment area have 

been indirectly accounted for. MAG 

models emissions from all parcels inside 

the nonattainment by synthesizing each 

parcel into composite one-acre grid cells 

for input to the air quality computer 

model. Emissions from residential areas 

outside the nonattainment area are 

indirectly included in the computer 

modeling by specifying “boundary 

condition” (i.e. upwind) ambient 

concentrations at the nonattainment area 

boundary. As a worst-case assumption, 

MAG assumes that these upwind 

concentrations would remain constant in 

the future. In reality, the upwind 
Chapter 4 

460

concentrations are likely to decrease in 

the future because major improvements 

in tailpipe emissions from off-road 

vehicles (ORV) and non-road engines 

would more than offset forecast 

population growth. 

• The predictive modeling in MAG's 

nonattainment plans and maintenance 

plans showed that air quality in the 

nonattainment area can be improved by 

implementing EPA-approved air quality 

regulations. The air quality control 

measures approved by EPA include the 

following: 

o PM10 emission reductions can 

be achieved by tightening 

controls on construction, by 

paving roads and parking areas, 

and by enhancing street 

sweeping. 

o Emission reductions for ozone 

precursors emitted by off-road 

vehicles can be achieved mainly 

by encouraging the public to 

continue to replace their 

existing cars with new, cleaner 

vehicles. MAG would be 

required to continue to operate 

its Enhanced 

Inspection/Maintenance 

program for passenger cars to 

demonstrate the expected 

ongoing improvements do, in 

fact, occur. 

o Emission reductions from 

stationary industrial sources 

would be achieved by 

implementing new, more 

stringent, regulations on volatile 

organic compound emissions. 

From the above analysis, one can conclude that 

BLM's land disposal actions satisfy the General 

Conformity Regulation. 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. 

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. 

4.9.1 From Special Area 

Designations 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Most special area designations specify limiting, 

curtailing or mitigating land use development 

and OHV use. Restrictions resulting from 

special area designations are likely to increase 

emissions in the future because of forecast 

regional population growth and increases in 

regional OHV use. 
Chapter 4 

461

Under its current management, two areas in 

Agua Fria National Monument have special area 

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 generating 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 prescription 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 would designate seven ACECs, further 

shifting 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 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 

curtailed by eliminating or mitigating recreation 

vehicle use in the Sheep Mountain RNA. 
Chapter 4 

462

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Site-Specific prescriptions and restrictions 

applied on ACECs (including ONAs), 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 BradshawHarquahala 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 satisfy all 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. Longer 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, 

then building and maintaining the new utility 

would generate temporary, localized fugitive 

dust impacts immediately nearby which would 

require mitigation. Implementing available dust 

control best management practices 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. 

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. 
Chapter 4 

463

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 (Preferred 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

(Preferred 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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

464

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 

WHAs 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Air quality impacts under Alternative E would 

be similar to those under Alternative C. 

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 

In both planning areas developing access, 

interpretive facilities, and interpretive media at 

selected sites would result in more vehicle trips 

as visitors access these 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 Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would be managed as SCRMAs with sites 
Chapter 4 

465

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 (Preferred 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 management 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 

(Preferred 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, 

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 will the emission of criteria 
Chapter 4 

466

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 will 

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. 

Alternative B 

In Agua Fria National Monument 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 

or enhance 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 which is 

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. 

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. 

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. 
Chapter 4 

467

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 6 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. 

In Agua Fria National Monument BLM would 

issue no SRPs. 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 on 

more land under Alternative D than under any of 

the other Alternatives. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

1,108 miles of routes would be closed. The 

route closures would reduce opportunities for 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

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. 
Chapter 4 

468

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 (Preferred 

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, greatly reduced vegetation 

cover would increase 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 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be the same as those described 

for Alternative B. 

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 
Chapter 4 

469

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: 

• 2 oil and gas exploratory wells, which 

could disturb as much as 20 acres; 

• 60 to 100 small locatable mines and 1 

or 2 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 

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 (Preferred 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 
Chapter 4 

470

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 (Preferred 

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. 

4.9.12 From Wild Horse and 

Burro Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts expected. 

4.9.13 From Management of 

Transportation and Public 

Access 

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 140 miles of route 

would be left open and 33 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 

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 (44 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 (122 miles). 
Chapter 4 

471

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

1,108 miles of routes would be closed. The 

route closures would reduce opportunities for air 

quality emissions and fugitive dust. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

In the Agua Fria National Monument, impacts 

would be the same as Alternative B, except 

that more net route miles would be closed (70 

miles). 

Impacts in the Bradshaw Harquahala Planning 

Area would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

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 intensity vehicle travel 

to remaining accessible areas resulting in 

reduced localized air quality impacts in newly 

restricted sites and increased temporary and 

localized, degraded air quality in other areas. 

Alternative C 

Impacts would be the same as described in 

Alternative B, except that more area would be 

allocated to the management of wilderness 

characteristics (107,510 acres). 

Alternative D 

Impacts would be the same as described in 

Alternative B, except that more area would be 

allocated to the management of wilderness 

characteristics (91,480 acres), but less area 

would be allocated than in Alternative C. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be the same as described in 

Alternative B except that more area would be 

allocated to the management of wilderness 

characteristics (96,420 acres), but less area 

would be allocated than in Alternative C and 

more than in Alternative 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 
Chapter 4 

472

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. 

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 Area 

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 eligible 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 

vehicles. Managing other uses to minimize 

disturbance would also improve hydrologic 

function. 
Chapter 4 

473

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 portion closed to vehicles, 

former routes would revegetate, improving 

hydrologic function. 

Alternative C 

Designating four ACECs in Agua Fria National 

Monument (Silver Creek, Indian Creek, Larry 

Creek, and Lousy Canyon) will 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 

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

ACEC Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

(Preferred) 

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 

474

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative E would propose no new special area 

designations in Agua Fria National Monument. 

Impacts to water resources would be the same as 

described for Alternative A. 

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. 

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 4-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. 
Chapter 4 

475

Construction could also disturb riparian 

vegetation and change the proper functioning 

condition over limited areas of construction. 

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 

Areaimpacts 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. 

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 (Preferred 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 (Preferred 

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, 
Chapter 4 

476

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

(Preferred 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 

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

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts expected. 

4.10.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and

E (Preferred 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. 

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. 
Chapter 4 

477

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, 

• 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 145 miles of open 

motorized route. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

allocating eight SRMAs and two areas to 

maintain or enhance 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 42,410 acres and the 

Passage RMZ would be reduced to 70 acres. 

Open motorized routes would also be reduced to 

135 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 or 

enhance 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 47 

miles. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Areaimpacts 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.
Chapter 4 

478

Alternative E (Preferred 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 in a Back 

Country Zone of 57,200 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). 

4.10.8 From Visual 

Resource Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

There are no impacts expected. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

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. 
Chapter 4 

479

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. 

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

For the national monument, impacts would 

be the same as those under Alternative B, under 

which livestock would not 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 

and 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 
Chapter 4 

480

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 

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 (Preferred 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 

Areaimpacts to mining would be the same as 

those under Alternative B.
Chapter 4 

481

4.10.11 From Fire 

Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Where prescribed burning is conducted in Agua 

Fria National Monument 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 

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. 

Under the current management of both planning 

areas, full suppression of wildfires would 

decrease desirable perennial grasses and increase 

brush. The resulting increase in bare ground 

could increase soil erosion, sediment yield, and 

sedimentation. Shrubs would continue to invade 

the upland areas at the expense of desirable 

perennial grasses. As a result, herbaceous cover 

on the soils surface would decline with related 

hydrologic effects, including lower infiltration, 

increased runoff, increased erosion, and 

increased sedimentation. Over time, greater 

peak flood flows and sedimentation could alter 

channel morphology. Possible adjustments to 

stream channels include increased bank 

instability, filling of pools, and channel 

widening. Use of heavy equipment during 

suppression could also degrade soils by 

promoting an increase in soil disturbance. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

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

(Preferred 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 
Chapter 4 

482

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. 

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 (Preferred 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 

(107,510 acres). 

Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B

except that 91,480 acres would be allocated for 

management of wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B

except that 96,420 acres would be allocated for 

management of wilderness characteristics. 
Chapter 4 

483

4.11 Impacts on 

Biological Resources 

Data Summary/Analytical Assumptions 

The statements made in the analysis of impacts 

to the biological resources are based on the 

professional judgment of biologists reviewing 

and analyzing the Alternatives. 

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 Area 

Designations 

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 eligible WSR segments of the Agua Fria 

River, wildlife habitat would benefit 

from actions taken to ensure no adverse impacts 

occur to 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 
Chapter 4 

484

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. 

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 (64,170 

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, 

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. 
Chapter 4 

485

The designation of these 10 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 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. 

Impacts of designating Vulture Mountains 

ACEC would include those described for 

Alternative C. In addition, Alternative D would 

expand the ACEC from 2,790 acres to 6,120 

acres, protect nest sites from disturbances 

within 1 mile and include the total closure of the 

area to mineral entry, protecting nesting raptors 

and desert tortoise habitat from a wider range of 

potential threats. 

Black Butte Raptor ONA ACEC would be 

expanded to 2,580 acres to protect a larger area. 

The impacts would be similar to those described 

for Alternative C, but would include the total 

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. 

Management actions in Harquahala Mountains 

ACEC would be similar to those described for 

Table 4-5. Desert Tortoise Habitat Acres by Alternative 

Desert Tortoise Habitat Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E 

ACEC (Total Acres) 9,660 640 56,520 192,800 89,970 

Category 1 (ac) 0 0 37,470 51,920 51,570 

Category II (ac) 0 640 5,890 106,030 19,040 

Category III (ac) 0 0 5,940 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 1,710 126,740 2,850 129,340 

Category III (ac) 0 2,050 10,690 3,630 4,040 

Riparian (mi) 0 0.40 14.70 5.00 14.70 
Chapter 4 

486

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 

• 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts of 

designating Bloody Basin Road as a Back 

Country byway would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area four 

ACECs are proposed for designation: 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC (74,940 

acres), Vulture Mountains ACEC (6,120 acres), 

Black Butte ONA ACEC (8,260 acres), and Tule 

Creek ACEC (640 acres). 

Impacts of designating Tule Creek ACEC would 

be similar to those described for Alternative C. 

Impacts of designating the Vulture Mountains 

ACEC would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D except that the habitat would 

remain susceptible to mining disturbances. 

Designating and managing the Harquahala 

Mountains ONA 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. Closing Browns Canyon 

to livestock grazing would increase riparian 

vegetation diversity and abundance, thus 

improving habitat quality for wildlife. 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 ONA 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 
Chapter 4 

487

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. 

4.11.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management 

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 4 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 more utilities, transportation corridors, 

and communications sites would disturb 

vegetation in the facility footprint and could 

encourage the establishment of invasive weeds 

in or next to the disturbed areas. Linear features 

normally authorized by right-of-way 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. 

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. 

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 53,143 acres of 

land outside the MUs would include the 

potential loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat 

on those lands, including 10,709 acres of desert 

tortoise habitat. 

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 
Chapter 4 

488

communication sites would have similar impacts 

to those described for Alternative A. The Black 

Canyon Corridor would be expanded 1 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 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 2 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 will 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. 

Alternative E (Preferred 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 38,755 acres 

of BLM's managed Federal lands would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B. 

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 1 

mile from the Bumblebee area south, and 2 

miles from Bumblebee north. The impacts of 

the corridor expansion would be similar to those 

describe in Alternatives B and C. 
Chapter 4 

489

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 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 

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 Arrastra 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 

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. 

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: 
Chapter 4 

490

• 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 lead to conserving 

and protecting 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. 

The management action 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. 

The management action to maintain wildlife 

water availability would ensure that waterdependant 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. This action 

would affect the distribution and abundance of 

some wildlife during some seasons. Research is 

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 will 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. 

The management action 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 decisions would affect biological 

resources by ensuring that endangered species 
Chapter 4 

491

conservation or recovery values are retained on 

Federal lands. 

The management action 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 most places the woody 

material selected for firewood is from species 

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 ensure it. 

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 from overexploitation 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 WHA (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. 

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 (77,730 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
Chapter 4 

492

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 Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn 

WHA (140,790 acres) would have impacts on 

biological resources similar to those described 

for the Belmont/Big Horn Mountains WHA and 

would also ensure that the needs of bighorn 

sheep are given priority consideration during 

evaluation of any future road improvements. 

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 

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 

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 (Preferred 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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

493

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. 

4.11.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management 

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 four sites, if 

developed. However, 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 

impacts would be similar to those described 

for the monument, but wildlife resources 

affected 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. Descriptions of cultural use categories 

are included in Appendix E. 

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument biological 

resources could be degraded by 

implementing High public use at two sites, if 

developed. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B but at fewer sites. 

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 

Impacts from developing the two Moderate 

public use sites described would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B but at fewer 

sites. 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

In Agua Fria National Monument biological 

resources could be degraded by implementing 

High public use at three sites, if developed. 

Impacts would be similar to those described for 
Chapter 4 

494

Alternative B. Impacts from developing the 

four Moderate public use sites would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B. Excluding 

the two Black Mesa pueblos from public use 

would remove conflicts with pronghorn 

migration corridors. However, interpretive use 

of the Rollie site could constrain migration 

between the southern and northern portions of 

Black Mesa. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would be similar to those described 

for Alternative B. 

4.11.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts to biological 

resources expected under any Alternative. 

4.11.7 From Recreation 

Management 

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. 

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. 

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 

42,410 acres. The developed campground in the 

Badger Springs area would be in a narrow 
Chapter 4 

495

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 28,420 

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 70 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. 

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 nonmotorized over 

the life of the plan would reduce habitat 

fragmentation and disturbance and the 

displacing of wildlife. 

Alternative E (Preferred 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 

12,440 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 57,200 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 1,300 acres. 

Within the Bradshaw-Harquahala, impacts from 

staging areas and route designations would be 

similar to those described for Alternative C. 

4.11.8 From Visual 

Resource Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

In the Lower Gila North MFP (BLM 1983) area, 

impacts to biological resources from designating 

areas as VRM Class I will 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 
Chapter 4 

496

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 will 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 502,610 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, except that the area in VRM Class 

I would increase to 98,820 acres and the area in 

VRM Class II would increase to 488,250 acres. 

4.11.9 From Rangeland 

Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Prohibiting livestock grazing in Larry Canyon 

ACEC in Agua Fria National Monument would 

not affect biological resources because the 

ACEC is inaccessible to cattle. 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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

497

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. 

Habitat alteration resulting from concentrated 

use can reduce forage availability for some 

wildlife, including desert tortoise and mule 

deer. Range waters and their resulting 

concentrations of livestock can attract cowbirds, 

which are nest parasites on many native 

songbirds, including the endangered 

southwestern willow flycatcher. 

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

498

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 

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative E would have impacts similar to 

those described for Alternative B. 

4.11.10 From Minerals 

Management 

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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

499

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 would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A. 

Impacts to biological resources in Tule Creek 

ACEC 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 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 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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

In Agua Fria National Monument impacts to 

biological resources would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A. 

Impacts to biological resources in Tule Creek 

ACEC and other areas closed to mineral 

development 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. 

4.11.11 From Fire 

Management 

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 
Chapter 4 

500

• 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. 

4.11.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management 

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 will 

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 will begin to recover and mule 

deer and bighorn sheep would not compete with 

burros for forage, water, or other habitat. 

Impacts in the Lake Pleasant HMA are the same 

as in Alternative A. 
Chapter 4 

501

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Removing nuisance burros and burros impairing 

sensitive habitats would result in impacts similar 

to those described for Alternatives C and D. 

Impacts in the Lake Pleasant HMA are the same 

as in Alternative A. 

4.11.13 From Management 

of Transportation and 

Public Access 

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. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala, prohibiting crosscountry 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. Allowing crosscountry OHV use in the area covered by the 

existing Lower Gila North Management 

Framework Plan (BLM 1983) would harm 

vegetation and wildlife by increasing the 

incidence of habitat destruction and by 

degrading cover and forage. Open OHV use 

could cause the loss of priority habitat and 

habitat for priority species, including desert 

tortoise. 

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. 

Alternative B 

Designating 140 miles of road as open and 

closing 38 miles in the Agua Fria National 

Monument would reduce habitat fragmentation 

and human disturbance to priority habitat and 

priority species, including riparian and 

pronghorn habitats. Closed roads would reclaim 

and restore habitat. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

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. 

Alternative C 

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B

except that 129 miles of roads would remain 

open, providing less habitat fragmentation. 

Alternative D 

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B, 

except that 47 miles of roads would remain 

open, fragmenting even less habitat than under 

Alternative C. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B 

except that 101 miles of roads under Alternative 

E would fragment fewer habitats than would 

Alternative C but more than would Alternative 

D. 
Chapter 4 

502

4.11.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics 

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 

In both management areas, allocations to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

would recognize wildlife populations and habitat 

as important aspects of naturalness and actively 

manage them. Such management would 

minimize impacts to wildlife. Allocating 56,040 

acres to maintain or enhance 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 or enhance 

wilderness characteristics to mineral material 

disposal would reduce ground disturbance and 

impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat.

Alternative C 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except that allocating 107,510 acres to maintain 

or enhance wilderness characteristics in 3 

management units, along with restrictions to 

roads and vehicles, would further reduce 

disturbances to priority wildlife habitats. 

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C, 

except 91,480 acres would be allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C, 

except 96,420 acres would be allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. 

4.12 Impacts on 

Cultural Resources 

The projected impacts on cultural resources 

relate to three main issues: 

• resource protection 

• scientific research, and 

• public education and interpretation. 

These issues reflect the informational, heritage, 

and educational values that are attributed to 

archaeological sites and places of traditional 

cultural importance. These values are correlated 

with allocations to scientific, traditional, and 

public uses. 

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 

priority management areas that would 

be allocated to public use. The No-Action 

Alternative (Alternative A) corresponds to the 

current management plans for both of the 

planning areas. The action Alternatives 
Chapter 4 

503

represent differing intensities of public use, 

ranging from relatively High (Alternative B) to 

Moderate (Alternative C) to Low (Alternative

D). Selected archaeological sites would be 

made available for increased public visitation 

and interpretation under Alternatives B and C. 

Most cultural resources would be excluded from 

public use under Alternative D. 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 Area 

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 will 

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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

504

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts from designating Bloody Basin and 

Constellation Mine Roads as Back Country 

byways would be similar to those discussed for 

Alternative B. 

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 priority area 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 except for a current special recreation permit 

that focuses on approved site recording and 

educational activities. ACEC status would 

provide limited added protection to the area. A 

National Register listing would underscore the 

cultural importance of the area in support of 

BLM’s efforts to protect it through a 

partnership. 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 allowed under current 

management guidelines could approve acquiring 

significant archaeological sites in and around 

Agua Fria National Monument, thereby 

enhancing values that the national monument 

was created to protect. Added protection 

afforded to cultural resources under BLM's 

management, such as applying the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA), would also help ensure that sites are 

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 

National Monument’s natural and cultural 

landscape. 

Disposal of lands in the Upper Agua Fria River 

basin might remove significant cultural 

resources from Federal protection. Conversely, 

acquiring lands in the Black Canyon and Lake 

Pleasant RCAs would likely increase the level of 

protection now given cultural resources on nonFederal lands. 

The disposal of 54,370 acres of BLM-managed 

land in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area could potentially place cultural sites at risk, 

though individual parcels would be evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis. However, most parcels are 

small, isolated, and near current or future urban 

growth areas where the potential for cultural 

vandalism is increasing. 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. Therefore, acquiring State and private 

lands would likely increase the level of 

protection for cultural resources on those lands. 

Alternative B 

Non-Federal land acquisitions in and next to 

Agua Fria National Monument would have 
Chapter 4 

505

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 might add 

or remove significant cultural resources from 

Federal protection. Impacts would be assessed 

on a case-by-case basis once specific parcels 

have been selected. Disposal impacts would be 

similar to 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 

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, 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. 

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Non-Federal land acquisitions in and next to 

Agua Fria National Monument would have 

similar impacts to those discussed for 

Alternative A. 
Chapter 4 

506

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. 

Lands available for disposal would total 38,755 

acres. 

4.12.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred Alternative) 

Where BLM implements measures that improve 

soil stability and vegetation cover, cultural 

resources are expected to 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). 

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 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Limiting vehicle routes in pronghorn corridors 

might restrict access to cultural resources, which 

would protect sites from human intrusions, but 

limit opportunities for scientific research, site 

monitoring, and interpretive development. 

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 
Chapter 4 

507

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. 

Alternative B 

Under all action Alternatives, BLM’s Phoenix 

Field Office (PFO) would continue to implement 

the highest Section 106 workload among all 

BLM's offices in Arizona. Each action 

Alternative places a greater degree of emphasis 

on 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 

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 

will 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 
Chapter 4 

508

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 

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 
Chapter 4 

509

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 

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 case-
Chapter 4 

510

by-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. 

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 

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 
Chapter 4 

511

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 

public education and the recreational 

opportunities and economic returns of cultural 

heritage tourism. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

In the Agua Fria National Monument three 

accessible sites would be allocated to a High 

public use SCRMA under High use 

prescriptions: 

• the Pueblo la Plata group on Perry 

Mesa, 

• the Rollie site on Black Mesa, and 

• the Teskey homestead site near Cordes 

Lakes. 

All sites are within the Front Country RMZ. 

The Rollie site is easily accessible from the 

Sunset Point exit of Interstate 17. The other two 

sites are also accessible from well-established 

roads. Five 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 60,570 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 
Chapter 4 

512

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

(Preferred 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

513

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 

• 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 

(42,410 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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

514

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 

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. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative E would allocate 12,440 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. 

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 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

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). For 

example, integrity of setting and feeling are 

important aspects of archaeological sites in 

Agua Fria National Monument. As a result, a 
Chapter 4 

515

large portion of the area can be regarded as a 

cultural landscape preserved through time. 

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 

516

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 (Preferred 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 

517

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 or enhance 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 or 

enhance 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

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 

studies by exposing previously obscure 

archaeological features in the national 
Chapter 4 

518

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 (Preferred 

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

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts to cultural 

resources expected. 

4.12.13 From Management 

of Transportation and 

Public Access 

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, 

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, 
Chapter 4 

519

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 

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts from transportation and public access 

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. 

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 (Preferred 

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. 
Chapter 4 

520

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 in or 

close to the planning areas. None of the known 

paleontological sites are on BLM-managed land 

in either of the planning areas. 

No known paleontological resources have been 

documented in either planning area. 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. 

4.13.1 From Special Area 

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 area 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 (Preferred 

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

(Preferred 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. 
Chapter 4 

521

4.13.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

 Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and

E (Preferred 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. 

4.13.4 From Biological 

Resource Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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

(Preferred 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

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts expected. 

BLM’s PFO would classify areas because 

of 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 effects on 

paleontological resources. 

4.13.7 From Recreation 

Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under the current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument concentrated recreation in 

certain areas could inadvertently damage 

potential paleontological resources. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

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. 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. Yet the presence of 

roads open to the public can inadvertently 

encourage travel to remote areas. 
Chapter 4 

522

Alternative B 

In the Front Country and Passage RMZs in Agua 

Fria National Monument certain areas open to 

OHV use could continue to cause inadvertent 

damage to paleontological resources on 58,200 

acres. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

recreation management common to all 

Alternatives could damage paleontological 

resources through ground disturbance resulting 

from developing recreational facilities. 

169 miles of routes would be closed in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area. Reduction in miles of routes could reduce 

the potential impacts of motorized recreation to 

paleo resources. 

Alternative C 

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument 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 (42,480 

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 to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the same as described in Alternative C, except 

to a lesser degree due to the smallest amount of 

Front Country and Passage RMZs (2,520 acres). 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

impacts would be the least under this Alternative 

due to the largest amount of routes being closed 

(723 miles) 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts to Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the similar to previous Alternatives, except 

that more area would allocated to Front Country 

and Passage RMZs (13,740) than Alternative D, 

and less area than Alternatives B and C. 

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

(Preferred 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. 
Chapter 4 

523

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative A. 

4.13.10 From Minerals 

Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred Alternative) 

Under the current management of Agua Fria 

National Monument minerals management is not 

expected to affect paleontological resources. In 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala, any mining might 

disturb such resources, but if fossils are found 

during mining, potential damage would be 

mitigated as suitable and practical. 

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 (Preferred 

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

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts expected under any 

Alternative. 

4.13.13 From Management 

of Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 (Preferred 

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 
Chapter 4 

524

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 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

In areas allocated to maintain or enhance 

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 

preferred setting. 

The escalating population of the Phoenix 

metropolitan area, coupled with the growth of 

other communities in the region will 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 Area 

Designations 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Existing recreation opportunities and 

experiences in the eligible 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 

eligible 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. 
Chapter 4 

525

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 an eligible 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 

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 will protect 

wilderness values, most notably enhancing 

opportunities for solitude sought by wilderness 

visitors. Future opportunities for commercial 

and vending operations in wilderness areas will 

be forgone as these permits will 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 

87,310 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. Selected motorized routes in 

the ACECs would be closed to protect resources. 

These closures would lessen opportunities for 

motorized activities. About 112 miles, or 90 

percent, of the routes in ACECs would be 

closed; the selection of routes to remain open 

would be based on maintenance of connectivity 

of touring routes that do not affect the ACEC’s 

resources. 

Although the resources protected by ACECs are 

generally located in areas without many routes, 

connectivity in the immediate local route 

network could 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. 
Chapter 4 

526

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 acres and 

all 413 miles of routes in the proposed ACEC 

boundaries would be closed. The added 

management restrictions on motorized routes 

would increase limitations on certain recreation 

and would eliminate them in some areas. The 

route closures under Alternative D would reduce 

the connectivity of the route network more than 

they would under Alternative C and could 

disrupt cross-country touring routes. Motorized 

recreationists would be displaced and would 

potentially travel to nearby areas and routes with 

available motorized opportunities. Additional 

camping and off-road driving impacts would 

accrue along these periphery areas and routes, 

impacting vegetation and scenery. Increased 

crowding of routes would reduce the quality of 

dispersed recreational experiences for some 

users. 

Impacts to wilderness areas due to group size 

and permit restrictions would be the same as in 

Alternative B. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Designating Bloody Basin Road and the 

Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn Road as 

back country byways would have the same 

impacts as described for Alternative B, except 

that Buckhorn Road would be included as part 

of the Constellation Mine Road Back Country 

Byway. This inclusion would enhance 

opportunities for loop trips and longer touring on 

these byways. 

Designating Tule Creek ACEC would be the 

same as Alternative B. 

Designating Black Butte and Harquahala 

Mountains ONAs, comprising 89,260 acres, 

would affect recreation by assuring opportunities 

for primitive recreation and solitude in natural 

and non-motorized settings. Non-motorized trail 

systems and opportunities would be enhanced, 

and conflicts among different user types would 

be reduced. 

Impacts of closing selected routes in the ACECs 

(22.5 miles, or 14 percent) would be less than 

those described under Alternatives C and D, but 

more than Alternative B. 

The route closures in ACECs would reduce the 

connectivity of the route network more than 

would Alternative B and C, and cross-country 

touring routes could be disrupted. Although the 

resources to be protected in ACECs are 

generally in areas without many routes, 

connectivity in the immediate local route 

network could be reduced. 

ACEC designations would create the same 

impacts as in Alternative C. 

Outstanding opportunities for backpacking, 

hiking, camping, hunting, and nature study 

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 
Chapter 4 

527

basin lands support multiple recreation activities 

and provide some valuable linkages to Forest 

Service land to the east and west. 

Utility and transportation corridors are not 

expected to impact recreation, unless potential 

projects are preformed. Environmental analysis 

of projects would determine possible impacts to 

opportunities for recreation, such as limits to 

route access and the creation of new routes for 

maintaining facilities. 

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. 

The 49,100 acres selected for disposal by the 

second set of criteria mainly consist of scattered 

lands disconnected from other BLM 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 BLM 

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 non-motorized 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 (Preferred 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 
Chapter 4 

528

generally in the Phoenix urban area. Because 

recreation on these parcels is generally minimal, 

relocating the activities to other BLM lands is 

not expected to have noticeable impacts. 

Impacts from other lands actions on recreation 

would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B. 

4.14.3 From Management of 

Soil, Water, and Air 

Resources 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred Alternative) 

Maintaining or improving water quality and 

providing for surface and subsurface flows in 

Agua Fria National Monument would benefit 

recreation. Water is a magnet to wildlife and to 

recreation pursuits. Both wildlife viewing and 

water-related recreation, such as relaxing along a 

stream, provide for sustaining social, 

psychological, physical, and spiritual renewals. 

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. 

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 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 
Chapter 4 

529

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 through route closures would 

diminish opportunities for motorized recreation. 

Enhancing wildlife habitat could affect 

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 the 

possibility of 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. 

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 WHA 

areas, and the Upper Agua Fria River Wildlife 

Habitat Corridor would maintain the current 

connectivity of the route network. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

closing or limiting vehicle routes in WHA areas 

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 area 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 
Chapter 4 

530

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 (Preferred 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 area, the 

Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn Wildlife 

Corridor, and the Harquahala Mountains and 

Black Butte ONAs would have the same impacts 

as Alternative C. 

Prohibiting the building of new routes in WHA 

areas and ACECs would have the same impacts 

as described in Alternative B. 

Impacts from desert tortoise restrictions would 

be the same as those identified in Alternative B. 

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. 
Chapter 4 

531

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

532

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. 

Closing routes that lead to archeological sites in 

the Black Mesa ACEC would affect the ability 

of motorized users to access those areas and 

could lead to fragmentation of the route 

network. Restricting SRPs to educational tours 

involving site recording or protection could 

reduce recreational and educational 

opportunities for casual users but could lead to 

better protection and stewardship of sites for 

long-term preservation. 

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. 

Alternative E (Preferred 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 
Chapter 4 

533

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

(Preferred 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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

534

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 

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. Opportunities for 

more primitive recreational experiences could be 

lost, fragmented or decline in some areas of the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area due to 

increased development and recreation access. 

More remote areas could retain good to high 

quality non-motorized or primitive recreation 

opportunities and experiences. 
Chapter 4 

535

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. 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. 

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, 
Chapter 4 

536

• 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 149,760 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. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use 

The impacts of OHV management and route 

closures in ACECs and lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

would slightly reduce the amount of lands open 

to vehicle-based and motorized recreation 

opportunities in these areas due to prescribed 

route closures to achieve recreation settings. 

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 
Chapter 4 

537

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 will 

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 

42,410 acres, and the Back Country RMZ would 

occupy 28,420 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. 

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 

42,410-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. 
Chapter 4 

538

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 and route 

closures in ACECs and lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

would be similar to Alternative B, except more 

area would be designated as ACECs and WHAs 

resulting in increased limitations on areas 

available for motorized recreation. 

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 will keep 

other areas open and available for races where 

currently none are held, with the exception of no 

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 will 

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 
Chapter 4 

539

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. 

Vehicles would be allowed to pull off designated 

roads no more than 15 feet to park for day use. 

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. 

Motorized activities at these new 

locations could increase user conflicts with other 

recreation and alter the recreation setting for 

some activities. Moreover, Alternative D

will 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 will 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 and route 

closures in ACECs and lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

would be the highest under this Alternative. 
Chapter 4 

540

Alternative D dedicates the most land to nonmotorized recreation through designation. 

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 will 

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 will be lost, and this demand 

will no longer be met. 

Alternative E (Preferred 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. 

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, 

• 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 
Chapter 4 

541

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 

OHV management and route closures in ACECs 

and lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics to achieve recreation 

settings would somewhat reduce the amount of 

lands open to vehicle-based and motorized 

recreation. Most closures would occur in the 

lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics in the vicinities 

of Black Butte, the Belmont Mountains, the 

Harquahala Mountain, and the Black Butte 

ONAs. 

Special Recreation Permits 

Impacts in the national monument would be the 

same as described in Alternative A. 

Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are nearly 

the same as those identified in Alternative C. It 

will 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. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

managing the lands allocated to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics as VRM 

Class II would affect recreation by retaining the 

current physical setting of 96,150 acres and 

enhancing the primitive recreational experience. 

The improvements at the proposed trailhead in 

lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

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. 
Chapter 4 

542

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 42,410 acres and 

the Back Country and Passage RMZs managed 

for VRM Class II would increase to 28,490 

acres. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

134,920 acres of lands allocated to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristcs 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 14,500 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 226,400 acres of lands 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics and 142,700 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 (Preferred 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 12,440 acres, 37,560 acres of VRM 

Class II would be managed in the Back Country 

and Passage RMZs, and 20,900 acres of VRM 

Class I would be managed in the area allocated 

to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. These allocations will 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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics would be managed as VRM Class 

II and 104,690 acres in ONA ACECs would be 

managed as VRM Class I. This management 

would benefit recreation by maintaining the 

areas with little to no visual impacts 

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

543

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 BLM 

lands. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts are expected to be the same as 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 

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 Monumentaan area of 172,510 cres--

are closed to mineral material disposal. 
Chapter 4 

544

Alternative B

Closing lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics and ACECs to mineral 

material disposal would improve recreational 

opportunities and settings on 268,260 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 325,970 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 469,680 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, except that 172,780 acres would 

be closed to mineral material disposal. Closures 

would ensure the retaining of high-quality 

primitive recreation opportunities in undisturbed 

natural settings. 

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 (Preferred 

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. 

4.14.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts expected.
Chapter 4 

545

4.14.13 From Management 

of Transportation and 

Public Access 

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. In 

the western part of the planning area that is 

covered by the Lower Gila North Management 

Framework Plan (MFP) (BLM 1983), crosscountry travel by some users could affect others 

by disrupting recreational and disturbing 

recreation settings. Recreation settings would 

shift over time to more motorized settings and 

opportunities. 

Alternative B

140 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 38 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. 

Up to 48 miles of route in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be closed in 

ACECs and lands allocated to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics. The closures 

would affect and displace motorized recreational 

opportunities for traditional users of those 

routes. The recreational experience of nonmotorized users would be enhanced through 

more opportunities to experience solitude and to 

participate in recreational activities in a natural 

and non-motorized setting. 

In the remainder of the planning area 2,086 

miles, or 98 percent, of routes would remain 

open. A total of 168 miles of routes would be 

closed elsewhere to (1) protect resources, (2) 

reduce redundancy, and (3) limit routes for 

administrative use. And 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 be 2,100 miles. The closures represent 

7.4 percent of the routes in the planning area. 

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 
Chapter 4 

546

for non-motorized, wheeled game carriers (small 

two-wheeled carts for transporting game) could 

affect the recreational experience for some 

hunters by limiting their opportunities to hunt in 

areas where retrieval of game would require 

travel over long distances. 

Enacting specific route, wash, or area closures in 

lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics and Tule Creek ACEC 

would affect the recreational experience and 

opportunities of motorized users. Route closures 

would diminish opportunities for traditional 

users. Area closures could disconnect multiple 

routes in the network. Protecting biological and 

cultural resources through the closures would 

maintain resources and preserve the natural 

setting for future recreational opportunities. 

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. 

The closure of routes crossing sensitive wildlife 

areas or movement corridors would diminish 

motorized recreation opportunities. 

Opportunities for wildlife viewing could be 

enhanced because wildlife would be able to 

move through their traditional corridors. 

Opportunities for trail-based individual, 

organized group and special motorized 

recreation uses could be lessened by restricting 

use or limiting development of new routes in 

areas managed for desert tortoise habitat, 

especially for motorized uses from October 15 to 

March 31 in Category I and II desert tortoise 

habitats. 

Alternative C

In Agua Fria National Monument 129 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 50 miles of existing 

routes and could diminish opportunities for 

motorized recreation in some areas. 

The impacts on opportunities for recreation in 

the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area would 

be similar to those under Alternative B, except 

the model route system for Alternative C would 

close 382 miles of routes, mainly in ACECs and 

lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics. In the rest of 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 nine percent less than in 

Alternative B. 

The recreational experience and opportunities of 

motorized users would be affected by imposing 

potential restrictions in eight ACECs and by 

enacting specific route, wash, or area closures 

in lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics. Route closures 

would diminish opportunities for traditional 

users, and area closures could result in the 

disconnection of multiple routes in the network. 

Protecting biological and cultural resources 

through the closures would maintain resources 

and preserve the natural setting for future 

recreation opportunities. 
Chapter 4 

547

Under Alternative C vehicles would be allowed 

to pull off designated roads no more than 15 feet 

to park for day use or for dispersed camping. 

This requirement would reduce the disturbance 

of vehicle pulloffs. However, it might require 

visitors (1) to camp closer to vehicle routes in 

less desirable areas or (2) to carry their camping 

gear to more desirable locations further from 

designated vehicle routes. 

Developing connecting route networks would 

have the same impacts as Alternative B. 

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 new fences in the Belmont/Big Horn 

Mountains and Date Creek Mountains WHA 

areas, and the Upper Agua Fria River Wildlife 

Habitat Corridor would maintain the current 

connectivity of the route network. 

Closing or limiting vehicle routes in the 

Belmont/Big Horn Mountains WHA area and in 

the Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn Wildlife 

Corridor could affect the connectivity of the 

route network and diminish the recreational 

experience and opportunities for motorized 

users. Prohibiting the building of new routes in 

the Date Creek Mountains WHA area 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 

In Agua Fria National Monument 47 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 122 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. 

The impacts of route designations on 

recreational opportunities in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area would be similar to 

those under Alternative B. The model route 

system for Alternative D, however, would 

close 412 miles of routes in ACECs and lands 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. In addition, routes might be 

closed in other allocations to meet resource 

management objectives and settings. In the rest 

of the planning area 1,645 miles of routes would 

remain open, and 723 miles of potential closures 

would be mitigated by developing 62 miles of 

new routes. The total distance of open routes 

would be 1,707 miles, representing a loss of 24 

percent of the existing routes. 

Impacts from route limitations and development 

of sites for recreation in the pronghorn corridors 

in Agua Fria National Monument 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. 

ACEC designations could limit motorized 

recreation developments and restrict activities, 

diminishing the recreation experience of some 

users. 

Impacts from desert tortoise restrictions would 

be the same as those identified in Alternative B. 
Chapter 4 

548

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

The route network in the monument under the 

preferred alternative would retain 101 miles of 

existing route and construct one mile of new 

route to enhance connectivity. 

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 70 

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. 

Pronghorn habitat concerns were considered as 

part of the evaluation process for designating the 

route network as developed for this alternative. 

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. 

Under the model route system for the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area 114 miles of routes in 

ACECs and lands allocated to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics would be 

closed. The closures would affect and displace 

motorized recreational opportunities for 

traditional users of those routes. The 

recreational experience of non-motorized users 

would be enhanced through more opportunities 

to experience solitude and to participate in 

recreational activities in natural and nonmotorized settings. Within ACECs and lands 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics 179 miles, or 61.3 percent, of 

routes would remain open. 

A total of 211 miles of routes would be closed to 

protect resources, to reduce redundancy, and to 

limit routes for administrative use. 

And 39 miles of new routes would be 

established to mitigate losses from the closures 

and to achieve better route connectivity. The 

total length of open routes would be 2,028 miles. 

 The closures represent nine percent of the 

routes in the planning area. 

OHV management and route closures in ACECs 

and lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics to achieve recreation 

settings would somewhat reduce the amount of 

lands open to vehicle-based and motorized 

recreation. Most closures would occur in the 

lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics in the vicinity 

of Black Butte and within the Belmont 

Mountains and in the Harquahala Mountain and 

Black Butte ONAs. 

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 

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. 

Prohibiting new fences in the Belmont/Big Horn 

Mountains WHA would help maintain the 

current connectivity of the route network and 

enhance the unencumbered travel of motorized 

visitors. 

Closing or limiting vehicle routes in the 

Belmont/Big Horn Mountains WHA area, the 

Harquahala/Belmont/Big Horn Wildlife 

Corridor, and the Harquahala Mountains and 

Black Butte ONAs could affect the connectivity 

of the route network and diminish the 

recreational experience and opportunities for 

motorized users. Motorized users could be 

displaced or could permanently lose these 

opportunities. 
Chapter 4 

549

Prohibiting the building of new routes in WHA 

areas and ACECs could affect motorized 

recreation opportunities by preventing 

maintenance of route connections when other 

routes are closed for resource protection. 

Moreover, new routes could not be built to 

satisfy the public demand for more interesting, 

challenging, and long-distance route systems 

and loops. 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. 

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. 

Impacts from desert tortoise restrictions would 

be the same as those identified in Alternative B. 

4.14.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under Alternative A no areas would be managed 

specifically to maintain or enhance 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 or enhance 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. 
Chapter 4 

550

Non-motorized users would benefit from the 

limitation on vehicles in areas designated to 

manage or enhance 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. 

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 

107,510 acres of land would be managed to 

maintain or enhance 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. 

The impacts of managing lands in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area allocated to maintain 

or enhance wilderness characteristics would be 

similar to those under Alternative B and C, 

except that the total area of public lands affected 

would be 91,480 acres. Alternative D would 

designate some of the lands identified to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

described in Alternatives B and C as ONA 

ACECs. Impacts for ACECs are described in 

the Special Area Designations section 4.6. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

In Agua Fria National Monument no impacts are 

expected. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area impacts would be the same as Alternative 

B except that 96,420 acres of land would be 

managed to maintain or enhance 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 but not as much 

as Alternative C. 

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

551

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 will negotiate 

with project proponents to try to 

minimize the visual intrusion of 

any project proposal. 

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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

552

4.15.1 From Special Area 

Designations 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under current management present conditions 

would be maintained, and no visual resource 

classes would be in place. BLM would evaluate 

future projects for visual impacts, but would 

give no guidance as to whether projects are 

consistent with area values. As such, no impacts 

on VRM are expected from special area 

designations. 

Though no VRM classes were allocated in past 

plans, the nonimpairment standard for the 

eligible Wild and Scenic river segments within 

the national monument 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. 

Continued management in this VRM Class 

could result in a steady decline of visual 

character as activities could be seen in the 

landscape, though they couldn’t dominate views 

from key observation points. Eventually, the 

character of the currently intact cultural 

landscapes within the Perry Mesa ACEC could 

be lost because there is no prescription or 

standard to preserve it. 

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 not been 

allocated to a VRM Class and has no 

prescription or standards defining management 

of the visual landscape. As a result, it would be 

managed at VRM Class III standard, which 

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 

these designations should not affect visual 

resources because the national monument’s 

current management provides for a higher level 

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

Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

(Preferred)

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

II 0 486,800 502,610 340,880 488,250 

III 870,180 284,720 260,020 220,790 278,540 

IV 0 98,660 94,800 107,020 103,390 
Chapter 4 

553

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. In the ACEC more 

fences built to restrict livestock grazing and 

motor vehicles could alter the visual landscape. 

Withdrawing the ACEC from mineral entry 

would benefit visual resources by limiting the 

opportunity for mines and improvements to alter 

the visual landscape. Developing interpretive 

sites and implementing protective measures, 

such as installing fences or barriers, could lower 

the scenic quality of these areas. 

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.
Chapter 4 

554

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, 

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 314,580 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. Other impacts to visual resources 

could result from closing an entire ACEC to 

motor vehicles, thereby allowing existing 

vehicle routes to reclaim and disappear into the 

landscape. The Wilderness areas would remain 

under VRM Class I. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

In Agua Fria National Monument the WSR 

eligibility would be retained. Impacts would be 

the same as described for Alternative B. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

retaining the Harquahala Mountain Summit 

Road Back Country Byway and designating the 

Constellation Mine Road/Buckhorn Road as a 

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 would be 

evaluated for visual resource management under 

a project-specific 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 

555

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. 

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 

556

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 (Preferred 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. Expanding the Black 

Canyon Utility Corridor one mile west from 

Bumble Bee south and two miles west from 

Bumble Bee north will allow future utility 

development to meet demand in the Phoenix 

area, while allowing the flexibility to adjust 

facility sighting to minimize visual impacts as 

viewed from scenic overlooks along Interstate 

17. 

4.15.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and

E (Preferred 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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

557

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 157,180 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 (Preferred 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. Building fences or 

other barriers could impair visual resources. 

Closing routes and restricting grazing could 

increase vegetation cover, creating a more 

natural-appearing landscape. 

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. 

Authorizing commercial and other group tours 

could degrade visual resources because of 

disturbances caused by overuse. 

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 4,438 acres 

would be allocated to High public use for 

cultural resources, and five sites 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, totaling 316,103 

acres, 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. 
Chapter 4 

558

Alternative C 

Impacts to visual resources from cultural 

resources would be similar to those under 

the Visual Resources section of Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas. 

In Agua Fria National Monument 11,600 acres 

would be allocated to High public use, and two 

sites 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. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area the 

allocation of four SCRMAs could result in 

actions affecting visual resources. Impacts 

would be the same as those described for 

SCRMAs under Alternative B. 

Alternative D 

Impacts to visual resources from cultural 

resources would be similar to those discussed in 

the Visual Resources section of Management 

Common to Both Planning Areas. In Agua Fria 

National Monument no sites would be allocated 

to High public use. Without development to 

support visitation and site interpretation, 

management of cultural resources would have 

no impact on Visual Resources. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area the 

allocation of two SCRMAs could result in 

actions affecting visual resources. Impacts 

would be the same as those described for 

Alternative B. 

Alternative E (Preferred 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 similar to those in Alternative B. 

4.15.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 

could lead to localized reductions in visual 

quality, especially in remote and undeveloped 

areas. 

Large public land areas west of Highway 93 

remaining open to cross-country and 

unstructured OHV activity would continue to 

affect visual resources. Allowing a proliferation 

of new routes disturbs the soil and results in a 

loss of vegetation. As visitation increases over 

the life of the plan, visual qualities could be 

further degraded by landscape damage and 

increasing levels of dust. 

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 
Chapter 4 

559

• 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 or traverse across the Back 

Country RMZ. VRM objectives would allow 

maintaining the current visual character while 

providing limited management activities. Some 

visitor related development could occur, but it 

would not create 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 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 

or enhance wilderness characteristics 

(96,150 acres of BLM lands) would be 

minimized by emphasizing semi-primitive nonmotorized with semi-primitive motorized 

recreational settings along boundaries and along 

retained routes within that allocation. Closing 

more routes and reclaiming routes, washes, and 

single-track vehicle routes would enhance scenic 

quality and preserve the visual landscape. 

Motorized commercial and competitive events in 

the lands allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristcs within 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 42,410 acres, Back Country RMZ would 

increase to 28,420 acres and Passage RMZ 

would decrease to 70 acres. 

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 or enhance 

wilderness characteristics to four, totaling 

98,430 acres. 

Alternative D

Impacts to visual resources from recreation 

management would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, except in Agua Fria National 
Chapter 4 

560

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 or enhance 

wilderness characteristcs would increase to six, 

but decrease in total acreage to 91,480. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts to visual resources in Agua Fria 

National Monument would be similar to 

Alternative B, except Front Country RMZ would 

increase to 12,440 acres, Back Country RMZ 

would decrease to 57,200 acres, and Passage 

would increase to 1300 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 or enhance wilderness characteristcs, 

increasing the acreage to 109,910. 

4.15.8 From Visual 

Resource Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Alternative A would maintain current conditions, 

and since no VRM management classes were 

established through prior planning, the visual 

landscape is expected to gradually decline. The 

policy to treat the whole area as VRM Class III 

could allow visual intrusions that are 

inconsistent with public interests. In addition, 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: 

• 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. 
Chapter 4 

561

In Agua Fria National Monument visual 

resource impacts would be the same as those 

discussed for Alternative B, except that 

42,410 acres of Front Country RMZ would be 

managed as VRM Class III and 28,490 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 II and 69,370 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 (Preferred 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 D, except that 

12,440 acres of Front Country RMZ would be 

managed as VRM Class III, 37,560 acres of 

Back Country and Passage RMZ would be 

managed as VRM Class II, and 20,900 acres 

would be allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics and would be 

managed as VRM Class I. The VRM Class I 

area would include the scenic vistas and cultural 

landscapes of Perry Mesa and Joes Hill, as well 

as views in and along the dramatic Agua Fria 

River Canyon. VRM Class I will help to 

preserve the scenic quality of these areas as 

described in the Appendix A. 

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. 

• The area of Class IV would be 103,390 

acres. 
Chapter 4 

562

The impacts of Alternative E would be similar to 

those described for Alternative D. 

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 

Closing all livestock grazing allotments 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 in higher desert and grassland 

communities as utilization of forage decreases. 

Conversely, 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 lands and through 

other grazing improvements to meet livestock 

needs that may have been lost from BLM lands. 

In addition, since the closure of BLM 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 (Preferred 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. 

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 mining scars, 
Chapter 4 

563

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. Overall, 

Alternative B would allow more visual intrusion 

into the landscape than would Alternatives C, D, 

or E. 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): 

• 268,260 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 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): 

• 325,970 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): 

• 469,680 acres would be closed to 

development of saleable minerals 

• 446,440 acres would be closed to 

development of locatable minerals 

• 453,550 acres would be closed to 

development of leasable minerals 

Alternative E (Preferred 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): 

• 172,780 acres would be closed to 

development of saleable minerals 
Chapter 4 

564

• 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 (Preferred 

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) 

Removing all burros from the Harquahala HA 

could affect visual resources by increasing 

vegetation cover, thereby altering the visual 

landscape of their range as competition for 

forage decreases and the burros are removed. 

Scenery would change as evidence of trailing 

and vegetation damage and trampling diminish 

and more natural conditions are restored. 

4.15.13 From Management 

of Transportation and 

Public Access 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Lands in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area would remain undesignated per VRM 

Classes. Accordingly, visual impacts from 

authorizations and uses would be less carefully 

managed. 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 

up hillsides, through riparian zones, and longterm soil and vegetation damage would impact 

visual resources over both the short and longterm. 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 

significant impacts within the Agua Fria 

National Monument since the lands are under 

special protection provided by the proclamation 

(Appendix A). 
Chapter 4 

565

Alternative B

A wide range of impacts from none to 

adverse are anticipated from management of 

travel, transportation and public access. Small 

transportation projects would be mitigated and 

consistent to the appropriate VRM classes. 

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 significant 

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 significant 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 transportation and public 

access under Alternative D due to the lands 

allocated as Class I and Class II areas. All 

visual impacts would be mitigated and 

consistent to the appropriate VRM classes. 

VRM allocations will 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 significant 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 (Preferred 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 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Visual and scenic resource conditions would be 

maintained, enhanced, and additionally 

protected within landscapes allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

Light pollution could be less, and dark skies 

would be effectively maintained. 

4.16 Impacts on 

Rangeland 

Management 

4.16.1 From Special Area 

Designations 

Alternative A (No Action) 
Chapter 4 

566

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 the eligible 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 87,310 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. 

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 314,580 acres are 

proposed for designation. Vehicle restrictions 

would reduce damage to range vegetation, stress 

to wildlife, and vectoring of noxious weeds. 
Chapter 4 

567

 Restrictions on mining and mineral material 

extraction would result in less damage to of 

range vegetation and reduced volumes of mining 

traffic. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

In the national monument, there are no ACEC 

proposals under this Alternative. The ACEC 

acreage in the Bradshaw-Harquahala would then 

be 89,970 acres. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala, impacts from 

ACECs would be similar to Alternative C,

except there are more acres proposed in ACECs. 

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 within the monument 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 infrastructure construction of various 

types. These activities typically have a slight 

effect on the total AUMs for livestock grazing. 

Any land tenure adjustment 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 or whole allotments may be closed. 

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

568

grazing in the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning 

Area. 

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. 

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 (Preferred 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. 

New utility construction and maintenance of 

existing utilities would have similar impacts to 

Alternative A. 

4.16.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and 

E (Preferred 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 mechanical 
Chapter 4 

569

vegetation treatment methods could increase the 

potential for invasive species to encroach. 

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. To 

prevent disruption to native fish transplants, 

livestock would be restricted or excluded in 

these areas. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

mitigation for spring and seep development 

could require livestock exclusion. Closing of 

waters could lead to increased livestock use in 

other areas and result in potentially poor 

livestock distribution across the landscape. 

Watering points outside the protected zone 

would need to be developed to maintain proper 

livestock distribution. Added costs would be 

incurred to make the infrastructure 

improvements. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

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 

habitat would affect 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. 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 (Preferred 

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 
Chapter 4 

570

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

(Preferred 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 will 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 will increase, as will 

vandalism of range improvements. 

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 from 

collisions with vehicles. The permit process 

allows BLM to control where the permittees will 

go and places stipulations on how they will 

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 will increase the potential for 

animal-vehicle collisions. 

Increased visitation would bring increased 

vehicle numbers. The potential for animalvehicle collisions would increase with rising 

recreation use. Increased OHV use could 

increase the vectoring of invasive weeds, which 

could displace native vegetation. 

Limiting vehicle use to designated routes will 

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 27,570 acres and restricted 

near 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. 
Chapter 4 

571

• New trails established for pedestrian, 

non-motorized, and motorized use could 

increase the risk of animal stress and 

potential mortality from collisions with 

vehicles. 

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 A. 

Impacts to livestock operations would not be 

applicable because grazing ceases in this 

Alternative. 

Activities authorized through Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) are expected to have impacts 

similar to those in Alternative B. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be the same as Alternative B, except that the 

Front Country RMZ would decrease to 12,440 

acres, the Back Country RMZ would increase to 

57,200 acres, and the Passage RMZ would 

increase to 1,300 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 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Because VRM standards are not managed under 

Alternative A, no impacts are expected. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative D eliminates grazing from the 

planning area, so no impacts are expected from 

VRM management. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and E, impacts to 

rangeland resources, particularly grazing 

management, resulting from VRM management 

classes, would 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. 
Chapter 4 

572

4.16.9 From Rangeland 

Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

There are no impacts expected for either 

planning area. 

Alternative B 

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 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 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 C

Impacts would be similar to those described in 

Alternative B, 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 

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 B. 

Alternative D

Closing all grazing allotments 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. 
Chapter 4 

573

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to those in Alternative 

B. 

4.16.10 From Minerals 

Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Agua Fria National Monument is closed to new 

mineral entry. This action eliminates the 

potential for heavy hauling equipment for 

mining, and with it, the risk of increased 

livestock-vehicle collisions. The loss of 

productive rangeland vegetation to the surface 

disturbance of mining would also be avoided. 

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 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to those described under Alternative 

A. 

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. 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 

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. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

Alternative) 

In Agua Fria National Monument some naturally 

ignited fires would be allowed to burn if defined 

prescriptive conditions are being met. 

Regardless, impacts 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 because no burros 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. 
Chapter 4 

574

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

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. 

4.17 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 

interest. However, areas of moderate oil and gas 

potential do exist (Map 3-17). 

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 
Chapter 4 

575

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 3-17. 

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 

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 
Chapter 4 

576

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 

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. 

SALESABLE 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 3-20. Those locations have high 

potential for saleable mineral resources because 

they are known to occur. Most of the locations 
Chapter 4 

577

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 Area 

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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

578

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: 

• 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 (Preferred 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 
Chapter 4 

579

similar to those for Alternative A. However, 

DFCs for the four ACECs will 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. 

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. 

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. 
Chapter 4 

580

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 (Preferred 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

(Preferred 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

(Preferred 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, 

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. 
Chapter 4 

581

4.17.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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: 

• to survey for cultural resources before 

any surface disturbance and 

• to mitigate 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

(Preferred 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

(Preferred 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 minimize 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. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred 

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

(Preferred Alternative) 

Rangeland management is not expected to affect 

mineral and energy's resources. 
Chapter 4 

582

4.17.10 From Minerals 

Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and

E (Preferred 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 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Current conditions would be maintained. 

Prescribed burns would affect access and 

operations in Agua Fria National Monument 

because some areas would be closed during 

prescribed burning. 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

(Preferred 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

(Preferred 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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Preferred 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. 

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 or enhance 

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 
Chapter 4 

583

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 (Preferred 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 Area 

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 restrict the amount and 

type of fire suppression. A total of 11 

percent (96,820 acres) of the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area is wilderness, where 

suppression and access are 

limited. Additionally, no mechanized equipment 

can be used in designated wilderness areas. 

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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

584

Alternative E (Preferred 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. 

Impacts from disposal of as much as 

54,370 acres of Federal land outside the MUs 

could include redistributing the overall Federal 

land ownership and consolidating Federal lands 

into more contiguous management blocks. This 

disposal could reduce fire suppression and 

management responsibilities and increase their 

effectiveness. Suppression costs could 

decrease. Management would be more 

contiguous across the landscape (not broken by 

parcels of non-BLM ownership) with a resultant 

increase in the efficiency of operations. 

Depending on post-disposal land use, 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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, 

except potential disposal acres would be 38,755. 
Chapter 4 

585

4.18.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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. 

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 (Preferred 

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. 
Chapter 4 

586

4.18.5 From Cultural 

Resource Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Protecting cultural resources, results in the use 

of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics 

(MIST) during suppression. When 

implementing MIST, fire managers use 

the fewest fire suppression resources, and leastimpacting 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: 

• 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 (Preferred 

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) 
Chapter 4 

587

• 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

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts expected from 

paleontological resource management. 

4.18.7 From Recreation 

Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Allowing continued open areas within the 

boundaries of the Lower Gila North 

Management Framework Plan (BLM 1983) will 

increase the risk of human-caused fire ignitions 

as recreation use increases. In addition, 

allowing target shooting anywhere would 

increase the potential for accidental humancaused ignitions. Shooting is a common cause 

of wildfire in some areas. 

Alternative B

It is expected that increases in recreation 

visitation will 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 

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts for Alternative E are the same as those 

described for Alternative B. 
Chapter 4 

588

4.18.8 From Visual 

Resource Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 

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 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

In Agua Fria National Monument Alternative B

would allow some naturally ignited fires to burn 
Chapter 4 

589

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

(Preferred 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 

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 (Preferred 

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. 
Chapter 4 

590

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

(Preferred Alternative) 

Wild horse and burro management would not 

affect fire management under any of the 

Alternatives. 

4.18.13 From Management 

of Transportation and 

Public Access 

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 

will also increase. 

Alternative B

Impacts to fire under Alternative B would be 

similar to those described for Alternative A. 

Road closures would affect fire management by 

reducing access to fires by ground initial attack 

resources. This reduction would have the 

following impacts: 

• increased initial attack response time, 

• limited access to fires, 

• fewer roads to use as firelines, 

• larger fires (more acres burned), and 

• increased fire suppression costs 

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. 

Closing roads would have a long-term impact on 

prescribed fire by reducing the number of roads 

that could be used as firelines (fuel breaks) in 

prescribed burning. Road closures might result 

in the need to build more firelines to safely 

implement prescribed fires and would increase 

the cost of prescribed burning. 

Alternative C

The impacts under Alternative C would be the 

same as under Alternative B, except that 

Alternative C would close and add limitations to 

more vehicle routes than Alternative B would. 

Alternative D

The impacts under Alternative D would be the 

same as under Alternative B, except that more 

closures of vehicle routes are expected under 

Alternative D than under Alternative C. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

The impacts under Alternative E would be the 

same as under Alternative B. 
Chapter 4 

591

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 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

For both planning areas, management of 

wilderness characteristics may impact fire 

suppression by preventing the construction of 

new firelines using heavy equipment. 

Implementation of appropriate management 

response for values at risk will 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 Area 

Designations 

Alternative A (No Action) 

No impacts are expected to the animals present 

or their habitat elements as a result of continuing 

to implement 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 

burro and livestock access. The area of the 

ACEC and the loss of forage within it would be 

so small that the effect on burros would be 

negligible. No adjustment in the Appropriate 

Management Level (AML) of burros would be 

required as a result of this action. 

No special area 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. Excluding 

livestock from Tule Creek ACEC would have 

the same impacts as described for Alternative B. 

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. 

Alternative D would designate two ACECs in 

the Harquahala HA: the Harquahala Mountains 

ONA ACEC and the Bellmont-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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts to the Lake Pleasant HMA would be the 

same as described for Alternative C. 

Designating the Harquahala Mountains ONA 

ACEC would not affect the burro herd. 
Chapter 4 

592

4.19.2 From Lands and 

Realty Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 (Preferred 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 (Preferred 

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 (Preferred 

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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

593

4.19.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 (Preferred 

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. 

Closing vehicle routes could decrease the 

number of vehicle-burro conflicts. 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

(Preferred 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. 

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. 
Chapter 4 

594

Alternative E (Preferred 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

(Preferred Alternative) 

There are no impacts expected. 

4.19.11 From Fire 

Management

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 (Preferred 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Increasing OHV use on existing and 

undesignated route networks, and increasing 

levels of crosscountry 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 (Preferred 

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 

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. 

Closing vehicle routes as presented in the range 

of Alternatives could decrease the number of 

vehicle-burro conflicts. Areas allocated to nonmotorized settings could help minimize impacts 
Chapter 4 

595

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 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

 The maintenance and enhancement of lands 

with wilderness characteristics would reduce 

the number of motorized vehicle routes, end 

cross-country vehicle travel, and 

maintain ecological conditions. Overall, this 

allocation would have minimal impacts on 

the number or location of wild 

burros. However, closing specific vehicle 

routes could decrease the number of vehicleburro conflicts. Areas allocated to nonmotorized 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 

Transportation and 

Public Access 

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. 

4.20.1 From Special Area 

Designations

Alternative A (No Action) 

The Agua Fria National Monument would be 

closed to cross-country motorized travel to 

protect the monument's objects. Existing routes 

would remain open. No impacts are likely to 

occur unless monument resources are found to 
Chapter 4 

596

be damaged. Closing OHV routes or activity 

areas to protect monument resources could limit 

recreation in some areas, but resources would be 

protected for future activities. 

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 Backcountry Byway would continue 

with no impacts on current opportunities. 

The Harquahala Mountain Summit Backcountry 

Byway would remain as currently administered. 

Transportation and Public Access uses would 

continue to be positively impacted due to the 

interpretation, staging areas, amenities, route 

markings and periodic maintenance. 

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. 

The route system, developed though an 

interdisciplinary evaluation process, would 

enhance travel and access opportunities for 

motorized recreation by creating loop trails, 

allowing increased touring and greater public 

access. No other Special Area Designations are 

proposed within the monument, so there are no 

additional effects. 

Designated wilderness areas in the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area and the Harquahala 

Mountain Summit Backcountry Byway would 

have the same 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. 

Alternative C

Impacts in Agua Fria National Monument would 

be similar to Alternative B, except more routes 

would be closed. 129 miles, or 69.7 percent, of 

routes would remain open to vehicular travel. 

Within the monument’s Silver Creek ACEC, 

0.45 miles of route would be closed to vehicle 

use to maximize protection of the Gila Chub. 

The Bloody Basin Road Backcountry Byway 

would improve the opportunity for touring the 

main use corridor in the monument, thus 

allowing more visitors to experience the 

monument. Additional use could increase noise, 

and litter/dust could negatively affect some 

visitors’ experiences. Impacts to the monument 

would be minimal if mitigation of these effects 

were engaged. 

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 and B. 

The Black Mesa ACEC would restrict travel on 

routes traveling directly to or through cultural 

sites. The Tule Creek ACEC would have 

impacts similar to Alternative A. The Vulture 

Mountains ACEC would have the effect of 

preventing any new vehicle routes from being 

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/ 

enhance 

wilderness 

characteristics 

0 47 9 0 35 

ERMA and 

SRMA 2,240 2,038 1,861 1,645 1,850 
Chapter 4 

597

constructed. Also, existing routes could be 

closed if they conflict with raptor habitat. The 

Harquahala Mountains ONA ACEC would 

retain most of the existing routes while 

preventing any new vehicle routes from being 

constructed. Impacts to the route network for 

development of a long distance trail system 

would be small. The Black Butte ACEC would 

have a minimal effect on travel and 

transportation since routes inside the ACEC 

boundary are little traveled. Travel in Jackrabbit 

wash would likely be closed as result of the 

route evaluation process described in Appendix 

D. This would be noteworthy for some users in 

the area as this sandy wash route is used by 

OHV and ATVs as a through travel route. 

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. 

Alternative D

Impacts in the Agua Fria National Monument 

would be similar to Alternative B, except 47 

miles, or 27.8 percent of routes would remain 

open to vehicular travel. The route system under 

Alternative D would not add new routes. 

Opportunities for motorized recreation would be 

limited, and loop trails would not be developed. 

The route system would close 122 miles of 

existing routes and could greatly diminish 

opportunities for motorized recreation and 

public access in some areas. 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 C. 

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 would diminish 

significantly by imposing potential restrictions 

in ACECs. These ACEC route closures would 

diminish opportunities for traditional motorized 

users, and lead to the disruption and 

disconnection of multiple routes in the travel 

network. These impacts are described in detail 

below. 

Designation of the Black Mesa ACEC would 

have effects similar to ones described in 

Alternative C. The Tule Creek ACEC would 

have similar effects as described in Alternative 

B. The Baldy Mountain ONA ACEC would 

have the effect of closing all routes within the 

ONA boundary, resulting in the vehicle route 

closures. The Sheep Mountain RNA ACEC 

would have the effect of closing all the vehicle 

routes within the boundary, but all inventoried 

routes are in a reclaiming state. New vehicle 

routes would be prohibited, but would be of little 

effect since land ownership around Sheep 

Mountain is private or State land. The Vulture 

Mountains ACEC would have similar effect to 

impacts described in Alternative C with the 

exception that an additional 3,320 acres would 

be encompassed by the ACEC. The BelmontBig Horn Mountains ACEC would have effect 

of prohibiting any new vehicle routes, thus 

limiting the ability of BLM and user groups 

from planning and installing a vehicle-based 

long distance route network. The Harquahala 

Mountains ACEC would have similar impacts as 

those described in Alternative C except the 

ACEC encompasses an additional 10,780acres. 

Additional route closures could potentially be 

implemented in this area if ACEC resources are 

impaired by motorized vehicle travel. 

The five designated wilderness areas within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area and the 

Harquahala Mountain Backcountry Byway 

would have impacts as described under 

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 will be separated along many 

parts of the trail. This separation will improve 
Chapter 4 

598

the experience of both motorized and nonmotorized trail users in the Black Canyon Trail 

area. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

The designated route and motorized travel 

network within the AFNM would be reduced 41 

percent under this Alternative. About 100 miles 

or route would remain open and 70 miles of 

vehicular routes would be closed (see Map 2-

57). Monument lands would remain closed and 

unavailable for cross-country motorized travel. 

The route system under Alternative E would add 

only 1 mile of new route. There would be a 

noticeable loss of motorized touring, driving and 

vehicle-based activities. Travel networks, loops, 

and connectivity would be disrupted or 

diminished in some areas. Designating and 

establishing the Bloody Basin Road 

Backcountry Byway would have impacts similar 

to those presented under Alternative B. 

Under the model route system for the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area 114 miles of vehicle 

routes within ACECs would be closed. Most 

ACEC closures would occur in the lands 

allocated to the Harquahala Mountain ONA and 

the Black Butte ONA. Other closures would be 

done within the Tule Creek ACEC and the 

Vulture Peak ACEC. Impacts of route closures 

in ACECs would be similar to those described in 

Alternative C. 

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

(Preferred Alternative) 

The new, expanded lands and realty 

authorizations would gradually and potentially 

expand the route and travel network. This 

will happen over the life of the plan as new 

rights of ways for private and State land access, 

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 networks for motorized 

recreationists. On the other hand, subsequent 

development of these State and private lands 

could lead to the disruption or loss of public 

access across these non-Federal lands. 

Historically, much of the public access to BLMlands 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. 

4.20.3 From Management 

of Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Alternative A (No Action)

Vehicle route and OHV area closures on BLMadministered lands, required for protecting, 

mitigating damage; or 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 

and State lands. Moreover, these actions would 

occur on a case-by-case basis as complaints are 

filed or problems identified. 

County, State and private owners will apply 

existing law or legal measures to curtail damage 

to their property from the effects of damaged 

BLM-administered soil, air and water 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 
Chapter 4 

599

courses or water quality due to OHV travel and 

the public use of non-engineered or poorly 

engineered travel routes. Route and area 

closures 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 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Impacts on Transportation and Access 

management from localized case-by-case 

responses to soil, air and water damage or 

complaints would be the same as described 

under Alternative A. 

On most public lands under all action 

Alternatives, BLM would take direct action 

during and upon designation of the Travel and 

Access network to lessen, 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 

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 

except under Alternative D. Alternative D

would close routes and route networks within 

sizeable areas of the Hieroglyphic Mountains 

SRMA and associated locales. 

4.20.4 From Biological 

Resource Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

There are no impacts expected. 

Alternative B

Management for biological resources would 

reduce transportation routes and public access 

more than under Alternative A. 

Areas designated as ACECs would contribute to 

a decline or loss in travel and transportation 

access opportunities but would increase the 

preservation of biological resources. ACECs and 

their resulting impacts on transportation are 

discussed in section 4.20.1. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

64,220 acres would be managed as wildlife 

habitat. Managing a WHA would limit 

transportation access and vehicle routes that 

interfere with the preservation of the wildlife 

habitat. This limitation on access could 

shift transportation to other areas and 

concentrate vehicle usage on routes that remain 

open. 

Alternative C

This Alternative would provide more 

management of biological resources than 

Alternatives A or B. As a result, management of 

biological resources under Alternative C would 

have a greater impact on transportation and 

public access by restricting more area to 

motorized transportation. 

Impacts of WHAs would be the same as 

Alternative B except that Alternative C would 

provide management of more WHAs than 

Alternative B. The 157,180 acres in the 

Bradshaw Harquahala Planning Area would be 

managed as WHAs. In the monument, 39,330 

acres would be managed as WHAs, reducing 

access more than previous Alternatives. 

Alternative D

This Alternative would close the most area to 

motorized access due to biological resource 

management and ACEC designation. 

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. 
Chapter 4 

600

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Management of biological resources under this 

Alternative would restrict less motorized access 

than Alternative D, but more than Alternative C. 

Impacts of managing WHAs would be the same 

as Alternative C except that in the Bradshaw 

Harquahala Planning Area 140,310 acres would 

be managed as WHAs. 

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 and within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area to protect cultural sites or 

mitigate existing resource damage, but the extent 

of such closures would have little overall impact 

on motorized recreation opportunities and the 

current state of route connectivity. 

Alternative B

Vehicle travel networks could be adversely 

influenced in some areas of the Agua Fria 

National Monument and the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area as some routes would 

be closed (as discussed in section 4.20.1) 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. 

Alternative C

Other than limitations on routes from the Black 

Mesa ACEC described previously, management 

for Cultural Resources would reduce route 

availability if conflicts were determined. 

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to those described in 

Alternative C. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts on the Transportation network and 

public access 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 motorized recreation 

activities 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, 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. 

4.20.6 From Paleontological 

Resource Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 

routes would remain open. Closing OHV routes 

or activity areas to protect resources could limit 

motorized-recreation opportunities and 

experiences in some areas, especially along the 

wild and scenic river suitability corridor. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

nearly 100 percent of the 2,240 miles of vehicle 
Chapter 4 

601

routes would remain open. Existing types of 

motorized and vehicle-based recreation 

opportunities would continue unchanged. In the 

Vulture Mountains, Belmont Mountains, Big 

Horn Mountains, Harquahala Mountains, and 

Harcuvar Mountains; route networks and route 

mileage would increase over the long-term from 

current levels as there is no limitation or 

prohibition of motorized cross-country travel. 

These new route networks and route miles 

would also expand into presently unroaded areas 

over the same time period. 

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 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. 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. Recreation 

opportunities and 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 38 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. 

Under the model route system for the BradshawHarquahala Planning Area, up to 48 miles would 

be closed in designated ACECs. In the 

remainder of the planning area, about 98 

percent of existing routes would remain open. 

A total of 168 miles of routes within both 

planning areas would be closed elsewhere to (1) 

protect resources, (2) reduce redundancy, and 

(3) limit routes for administrative use. The 

closures represent 7.4 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 

2,100 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. 

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 activities. Accordingly, this 

limitation would not affect most OHV users. 

Restricting all motorized and non-motorized 

vehicles to existing routes would not affect 

current activities or public access, but would 

prevent developing new routes to expand the 

recreational experience. 

Alternative C 

In Agua Fria National Monument, 129 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 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 

B, but the model route system for Alternative C

would close 382 miles of routes (mainly in 
Chapter 4 

602

ACECs and lands allocated to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics). In the rest 

of 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. As a result, traditional users 

could be displaced and recreation opportunities 

diminished. 

Alternative D

In Agua Fria National Monument, 47 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 or foregone, as loop trails 

would not be developed. The route system 

would close 101 miles of existing routes and this 

action would displace or eliminate opportunities 

for motorized recreation and public access to 

some areas. 

The impacts of route designations on the 

Transportation and Public Access network 

within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area 

would be similar to those under Alternative B, 

except Alternative D would close 412 miles of 

routes in ACECs and lands allocated to maintain 

or enhance wilderness characteristics. The 

motorized recreational experience and 

opportunities of vehicle users would be lessened 

or eliminated in some areas by enacting specific 

route, wash, or area closures. 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. 

In the rest of the planning area 1,645 miles of 

routes would remain open, and 723 miles of 

potential closures would be mitigated by 

developing 62 miles of new routes. The total 

distance of open routes would be 1,706 miles, 

representing a loss of 24 percent of the existing 

routes. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

The route network within the Agua Fria National 

Monument under the preferred Alternative 

would retain 101 miles of existing route and 

construct 1 mile of new route to enhance 

connectivity. About 70 miles of route would be 

closed. Impacts to recreation from the preferred 

route network would be similar to Alternative C. 

A total of 211 miles of routes would be closed to 

protect resources, to reduce redundancy, and to 

limit routes for administrative use. Thirty-nine 

miles of new routes would be established to 

mitigate losses from the closures and to achieve 

better route connectivity. The total length of 

open routes would be 2,028 miles. The closures 

represent nine percent of the routes in the 

planning area. OHV management and route 

closures in ACECs and lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics to 

achieve recreation settings would somewhat 

reduce the amount of lands open to vehiclebased motorized recreation and public access. 

Most closures would occur in lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics in 

the vicinity of Black Butte, and within the 

Belmont Mountains and in the Harquahala 

Mountain and Black Butte ONAs. 

Developing connecting route networks and 

public access 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 
Chapter 4 

603

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. 

Limiting and reducing current levels of 

motorized access on 216,900 acres in nine areas 

would impede the ability of motorized 

recreational users to access and travel some 

secondary and tertiary routes, washes, and 

single-track cattle paths in these areas. 

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. 

Impacts of limiting all mechanized vehicles to 

inventoried routes before completion of the 

route designation process would be similar to 

Alternative B. 

4.20.8 From Visual 

Resource Management 

Alternative A (No Action)

Visual resource management would have no 

effect on the current Transportation and Public 

Access network. New motorized and nonmotorized routes would be developed on a caseby-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 (Preferred 

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 few major 

motorized travel routes authorized. Nonmotorized travel routes would be easier to install 

due to their smaller scope and effect. 

Some travel routes could be developed in 

ACECs with Class I and II VRM designations, 

but could be considerably restricted in ONAs 

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 Transportation and Public 

Access to and through such areas. 

4.20.9 From Rangeland 

Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred Alternative) 

Rangeland Management would have little to no 

effect on the Transportation and Public Access 

network under any Alternative. 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 
Chapter 4 

604

4.20.10 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 

would probably decline, be impaired, or be 

foregone over the long-term on BradshawHarquahala Planning Area lands allocated to less 

protective resource management. 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 and enhance 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 or enhance 

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 or enhance 

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 long-term. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Closing the allocation to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics to mineral material 

disposal and sales would reduce the potential for 

landscapes to be marred by mining and 

exploration activities. Natural areas and open 

space would be maintained and conserved. 

4.20.11 From Fire 

Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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. 

4.20.12 From Wild Horse 

and Burro Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D and E

(Preferred Alternative) 

Wilderness characteristics will not be 

affected by management of wild burro 

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. 
Chapter 4 

605

4.20.13 From Management 

of Transportation and 

Public Access 

Alternative A (No Action) 

No areas are allocated for maintaining or 

enhancing the management of 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 

107,510 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 or enhance 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 or enhance 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 or enhance 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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. Potentially adverse impacts on 

wilderness characteristics would be considerably 

less than estimated under Alternatives A, B or C. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts are similar to those described under 

Alternative C for lands allocated and not 

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. The magnitude of impacts on 

wilderness characteristics would be comparable 

to the environmental effects described under 

Alternative C. 

4.20.14 From Management 

of Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Alternative A (No Action) 

No areas are specifically managed to maintain or 

enhance 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 is a lack of 

short and long-term management actions in the 
Chapter 4 

606

monument that would directly impact wilderness 

characteristics. 

Wilderness characteristics could be impaired, 

decline, or be foregone on up to 107,510 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 and 

enhance 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, with 

the exception those wilderness characteristics 

would by and large be maintained in the 

monument’s backcountry management zones. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

wilderness characteristics would be maintained 

on 65,120 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 or enhanced. 

Overall, the allocation of wilderness 

characteristics would reduce the access of 

motorized users. On the other hand, nonmotorized 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 or enhanced 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 impaired, decline or be 

foregone on over 42,000 acres 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 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 and 

enhance 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 107,510 acres of land would be managed 

to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. Non-motorized users would 

benefit more than under Alternative B as 

additional lands are allocated to maintaining or 

enhancing wilderness characteristics. Loss of 

wilderness characteristics would be minimal 

under Alternative C. 

Alternative D 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C, 

except 91,480 acres would be managed to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

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 
Chapter 4 

607

ONA ACECs through the application of 

protective prescriptions. Impacts on special area 

designations are described in section 4.21.1. 

Wilderness values present in over could be 

degraded or lost about 16,000 acres, and more 

thoroughly described under Alternative A. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except 96,420 acres would be managed to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

Non-motorized users would benefit more than 

under Alternative B, but less than under 

Alternatives C and D. Wilderness values could 

be degraded or lost on about 11,000 acres as 

more comprehensively described under 

Alternative A. 

4.21 Impacts on 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

4.21.1 From Special Area 

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 allocated as 

proposed Agua Fria River WSR suitable 

segments. 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 Area 

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 Aqua Fria National Monument. No 

identified short and long-term monument 

management actions that directly or indirectly 

impact wilderness characteristics are 

anticipated. Special Area Designations would 

have no effect on wilderness characteristics 

within the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

Alternative C 

No areas would be specifically managed to 

maintain or enhance 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. 

Alternative D 

No areas would be specifically managed to 

maintain or enhance 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 
Chapter 4 

608

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 

Management Designations would not affect 

identified wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

There would be minimal impacts on wilderness 

characteristics within the Agua Fria National 

Monument, since no areas are specifically 

managed to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. 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 

wilderness characteristics. Within the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

wilderness characteristics within the 104,690 

acres comprising the Black Butte Raptor and the 

Harquahala Mountains ACECs/ONAs would 

remain relatively unchanged from current 

conditions and be conserved over the long-term. 

Other Special Management 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, or enhance 

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 or 

enhancing 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 or 

enhancing wilderness characteristics, would not 

be allowed. In view of that, disallowed lands 

and realty actions would have no effect on 

wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative C 

Impacts are the same as described under 

Alternative B, with the exception that five areas 

totaling 107,510 acres are under consideration 

for managing or enhancing wilderness 

characteristics. 

Alternative D 

Impacts are the same as described under 

Alternative B, with the exception that seven 

landscape areas totaling 91,480 acres are to be 

allocated for managing or enhancing wilderness 

characteristics. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics from 

Lands and Realty Actions are similar to those 

described under Alternative B, with the 

exception that 96,420 acres are allocated for 

managing or enhancing wilderness 

characteristics. 
Chapter 4 

609

4.21.3 From Management of 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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 

(Preferred 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 (Preferred 

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 or enhance 

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. 

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

(Preferred 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 or enhance 

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 
Chapter 4 

610

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 enhanced in 

the Back Country RMZ because vehicle 

intrusions and visitor use numbers would in all 

probability be constrained. 

The restriction of motorized access on lands 

allocated to maintain or enhance 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 help 

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 further 

restrictions on motorized use within the planning 

areas, a larger Back Country RMZ within the 

Agua Fria National Monument, and fewer SRPs 

overall. These management actions would offer 

more solitude opportunities and retain more 

wilderness characteristics for visitors seeking 

primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Alternative D 

Impacts would be similar to Alternatives B and

C, except that Alternative D proposes further 

restrictions on motorized recreational use in the 

planning areas, more Back Country RMZ 

acreage within the Agua Fria National 

Monument, and fewer SRPs overall. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

although motorized access would be somewhat 

reduced and restrictions on SRPs would more 

closely resemble Alternative C. 

4.21.8 From Visual 

Resource Management 

Alternative A (No Action) 

No VRM standards were applied in the Phoenix 

RMP (BLM 1988a) or the Lower Gila North 

MFP. As a result, VRM Class III standards 

would be applied throughout the planning area 

outside of designated wilderness (which would 

be VRM Class I). The application of VRM 

Class III may eventually lead to some intrusions 

in to the visual landscape in or around lands 
Chapter 4 

611

allocated to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. 

Alternative B 

Management of lands allocated to maintain or 

enhance wilderness characteristics to VRM 

Class II would retain the current physical setting 

of 96,150 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 134,920 acres of lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

would be managed to VRM Class II. 

Alternative D 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except 226,400 acres of lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics 

would be managed to VRM Class I, which 

would require more stringent design criteria. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except that 55,480 acres of lands allocated to 

maintain or enhance 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 will, 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 will be mitigated and 

consistent with the management and 

enhancement of wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative B 

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics from 

Rangeland Management actions would be 

similar to those presented under Alternative A. 

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 (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be the same as presented 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 
Chapter 4 

612

and the area is closed to mineral entry, mineral 

sales, and leasing. Wilderness characteristics 

would probably decline, be impaired, or be 

foregone over the long-term on BradshawHarquahala Planning Area lands allocated to less 

protective resource management. 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 and enhance 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 or enhance 

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 or enhance 

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 long-term. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Closing the allocation to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics to mineral material 

disposal and sales would reduce the potential for 

landscapes to be marred by mining and 

exploration activities. Natural areas and open 

space would be maintained and conserved. 

4.21.11 From Fire 

Management 

Alternatives A (No Action), B, C, D, and E

(Preferred 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

(Preferred Alternative) 

Wilderness characteristics will not be 

affected by management of wild burro 

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 Transportation and 

Public Access 

Alternative A (No Action) 

No areas are allocated for maintaining or 

enhancing the management of 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 

107,510 acres within the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Planning Area. Over a period of 20 years, 

reasonable levels of road and route development, 
Chapter 4 

613

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 or enhance 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 or enhance 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 or enhance 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 or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. Potentially adverse impacts on 

wilderness characteristics would be considerably 

less than estimated under Alternatives A, B or C. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts are similar to those described under 

Alternative C for lands allocated and not 

allocated to maintain or enhance 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 or 

enhance 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 is a lack of 

short and long-term management actions in the 

monument that would directly impact wilderness 

characteristics. 

Wilderness characteristics could be impaired, 

decline, or be foregone on up to 107,510 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 and 

enhance 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 
Chapter 4 

614

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, with 

the exception those wilderness characteristics 

would by and large be maintained in the 

monument’s backcountry management zones. 

In the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area, 

wilderness characteristics would be maintained 

on 65,120 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 or enhanced. 

Overall, the allocation of wilderness 

characteristics would reduce the access of 

motorized users. On the other hand, nonmotorized 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 or enhanced 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 impaired, decline or be 

foregone on over 42,000 acres 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 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 and 

enhance 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 107,510 acres of land would be managed 

to maintain or enhance wilderness 

characteristics. Non-motorized users would 

benefit more than under Alternative B as 

additional lands are allocated to maintaining or 

enhancing wilderness characteristics. Loss of 

wilderness characteristics would be minimal 

under Alternative C. 

Alternative D 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C, 

except 91,480 acres would be managed to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

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 present in over could be 

degraded or lost about 16,000 acres, and more 

thoroughly described under Alternative A. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, 

except 96,420 acres would be managed to 

maintain or enhance wilderness characteristics. 

Non-motorized users would benefit more than 

under Alternative B, but less than under 

Alternatives C and D. Wilderness values could 

be degraded or lost on about 11,000 acres as 

more comprehensively described under 

Alternative A. 
Chapter 4 

615

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 

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 
Chapter 4 

616

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. 

Designating Agua Fria National Monument will 

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

617

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. 

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 104 allotments with 932,907 

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) and in 

areas suitable or eligible for Wild and Scenic 

River areas 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 
Chapter 4 

618

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. 

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 will 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 PFO'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. 
Chapter 4 

619

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 

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. 

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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

620

Route modeling for Alternative B found that this 

Alternative would designate 2,100 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 two areas where lands 

are allocated to maintain or enhance 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. 

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

621

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 two 

areas allocated to maintain or enhance 

wilderness characteristics in the BradshawHarquahala 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 or 

enhance wilderness characteristics, and 

• applying restrictions that would result 

from designating 11 ACECs. 

Overall the restrictions would reduce visitor use 

in the planning areas and economic benefits of
Chapter 4 

622

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. 

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 or enhance 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 

or enhance wilderness characteristics in the 

Bradshaw-Harquahala 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 

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 
Chapter 4 

623

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 or enhance 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 

Cordes Junction provide local services to 

recreationists and would continue to benefit. 

However, benefits could possibly be less than 

under Alternative C. 

Ranching, Agriculture, and Livestock 

Production-Related Impacts 

Alternative D would prohibit grazing on BLM's 

lands. 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 
Chapter 4 

624

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 or enhance 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 nonFederal lands. As the population continues to 

grow and demand increases, future demand may 

not be met and increased costs of importing 

building material will 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 or enhance 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 

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 (Preferred 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 
Chapter 4 

625

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 or enhance 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 

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 Preferred 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 or 

enhance 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. 

Consideration of Bloody Basin Road in Agua 

Fria National Monument and Constellation Mine 
Chapter 4 

626

Road near Wickenburg for allocation as back 

Country byways would have impacts similar to 

those under Alternative B. 

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 fewer acres 

(11,830) would be allocated to VRM Class 

II and Class IV (7,930), and more acres (19,760) 

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, 
Chapter 4 

627

Goodyear, Wickenburg, and the greater Phoenix 

area. 

Impacts of utility and transportation corridors 

would be similar to Alternative A. 

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 

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. 

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, 

Table 4-9. Hispanic Populations within Human 

Resource Units

Hispanic Populations within Human Resource Units 

HRU/CRU % of Hispanics 

in Population 

% Points 

Exceeding 

County % of 

Hispanics 

Yavapai County (10% Hispanic) 

Wickenburg 

HRU 

11 1 

Aguila CRU 16 6 

Maricopa County (25% Hispanic) 

Phoenix HRU 27 2 

Tolleson HRU 78 53 

Buckeye HRU 26 1 

Buckeye CRU 28 3 

West Tonapah 

CRU 

32 7 

% People Living Below Federally Mandated 

Poverty Level 

HRU/CRU % Below 

Poverty Level 

in Population 

% Points 

Exceeding 

County % 

Below Poverty 

Level 

Yavapai County (12% Below Federally Mandated 

Poverty Level) 

Wickenburg 

HRU 

14 2 

Aguila CRU 20 8 

Yarnell CRU 16 4 

Agua Fria CRU 15 3 

Maricopa County (12% Below Federally Mandated 

Poverty Level) 

Phoenix HRU 13 1 

Buckeye HRU 17 5 
Chapter 4 

628

• activities on lands under the jurisdiction 

of other Federal and State agencies. 

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 many 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 
Chapter 4 

629

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 affects would be 

the ability of horses and burros to move from 

one location to another in response to 

management actions or natural conditions. 

The Taylor Grazing Act, WHBA, and FLPMA 

require the following: 

• that wild horses and burros be managed 

in a multiple use context, 

• that wild horses and burros be afforded 

equal allocation of available AUMs of 

forage on a per-animal basis, 

• that the number of livestock present be 

consistent with grazing permit levels; 

• that number of horses or burros present 

consistent with the AML; and 

• that wildlife requirements be estimated. 

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, 
Chapter 4 

630

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 

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. 
Chapter 4 

631

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 or 

enhance 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 

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 or 

enhance 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. 
Chapter 4 

632

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 (Preferred 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, 

• increasing areas allocated to maintain or 

enhance 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. 
Chapter 4 

633

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. 

List of Preparers 

636 

List of Preparers 

Bureau of Land Management

Teresa A. Raml B.S., Wildlife Biology 

28 years in DOI service 

Field Manager 

Chris Horyza B.S., Range Management 

27 years in BLM service 

Project Coordinator 

Kathy Pedrick M.A., Anthropology 

26 years in DOI service 

Agua Fria National 

Monument Manager, 

Assistant Field Manager for 

Resource Use and 

Protection 

Marlynn Spears B.S., Wildlife Management 

27 years in BLM service 

Associate Field Manager 

for Lands and Minerals 

Gregg Simmons B.S. Forest Management 

31 years in BLM service 

BLM State Planning and 

Environmental Coordinator 

Merv Boyd B.S., Business 

25 years in BLM service 

Field Manager - Detail 

Tim Hughes B.S., Wildlife Biology 

19 years in BLM service 

Biological Resources 

Rich Hanson B.S., Recreation Resource 

Administration 

27 years in BLM service 

Recreation and Wilderness 

Mary Skordinsky M.A., Recreation 

12 years in BLM service 

Agua Fria National 

Monument Recreation 

Connie Stone Ph.D., Anthropology 

18 years in BLM service 

Cultural Resources 

Clay Templin B.S., Range Management 

20 years in BLM service 

Rangeland Resources, Agua 

Fria National Monument 

Manager 

Jeff Garrett B.S., Geology 

20 years in BLM service 

Mineral Resources 

Helen Graham B.S., Biology 

13 years in BLM service 

Fire Management 

Glenn Joki B.S., Engineering Studies 

30 years in BLM service 

Fire Management 

Jim Anderson B.S., Natural Resource Management Lands and Realty 
List of Preparers 

637 

 26 years in BLM service 

JoAnn Goodlow M.A., Project Management 

5 years in BLM service 

Lands and Realty 

Lin Fehlmann B.S., Secondary Education 

Biological Resources 

27 years in BLM service 

Water Rights 

Tom Bickauskus B.S., Manufacturing Engineering 

Technology 

4 years in U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

Transportation Management 

Nancy Guererro B.A., Communications 

21 years of DOI Services 

External Affairs 

Christine Tincher B.A., Communication 

7 years in BLM service 

External Affairs 

Sally Oliviera A.S., Forest Technician 

4 years in BLM service 

Geographic Information 

Systems and Mapping 

Paul Summers B.S., Geology 

36 years in BLM service 

Water Resources 

Ralph Costa B.S., Engineering 

16 years in BLM service 

Acting Associate Field 

Manager for Lands and 

Minerals 

Genevieve Johnson B.S., Conservation Biology 

1 year in BLM service 

Planning & Environmental 

Assistant 

Arlene Tavizon A.A., General Education 

1 year in BLM service 

Planning & Environmental 

Assistant 

Lillian Robinson M.A., Human Resources 

23 years of Federal Service 

Writer/Editor 

John Priecko B.S., in Environmental Geography 

and Biology 

2 months in BLM service 

Planning & Environmental 

Assistant 

Matthew Magaletti A.S., Urban and Regional Planning Planning & Environmental 

 2 months in BLM service Assistant 

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 
List of Preparers 

638 

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 

B.A., English 

Technical Writer/Editor, 

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 
List of Preparers 

639 

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 

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 

640 

List of Draft 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 

641 

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 

642 

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 

643 

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 

644 

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 

645 

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 

PFO: BLM Phoenix Field Office 

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 

646 

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 

WMAs: Wildlife Management Areas 

WSA: Wilderness Study Areas (Alternative A only) 

WSR: National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

WUI: Wildland-Urban Interface 
References 

647 

References 

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 Office, 

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 Office, 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. 

________. 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. 
References 

648 

________. 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 ??, issue ??, month? 1995 

________. 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. 

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. 
References 

649 

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. 

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. 

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. 

__________. 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. 

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. 

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. 

Sonoran Institute. 2003. Population, Employment, Earnings and Personal Income Trends: Yavapai County, AZ. 

Bozeman, MT. October 31. 
References 

650 

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. Forest Service, Prescott National Forest. 2001. Proposed Action: Forest Plan Amendment. Prescott, AZ. 

November. 

Wickenburg, Town of. 1988. Wickenburg General Plan. 

Yavapai County. 2003. Yavapai County General Plan. Adopted April 7. 
Glossary 

651 

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 

652 

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 

653 

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 

654 

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 

655 

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 

656 

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 

657 

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 

658 

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." 

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. 

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 
Glossary 

659 

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. 

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 

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. 
Glossary 

660 

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. 

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. 

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" 
Glossary 

661 

(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. 

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). 
Glossary 

662 

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. 

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. 
Glossary 

663 

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. 

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. 
Glossary 

664 

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 

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. 
Glossary 

665 

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. 

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 
Glossary 

666 

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. 

MANAGE FOR WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS (MWC) AREAS -

Areas that contain values such as outstanding 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation or outstanding opportunities for 

solitude and a few human intrusions, where 

preservation of these values represents a major 

management focus. 

MAJOR LAND RESOURCE AREAS 

(MLRAs) - Broad geographic areas that have a 

particular pattern of soils, climate, water 

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. 
Glossary 

667 

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 

Field Office 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. 

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. 
Glossary 

668 

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 private agencies and individuals in 

preserving the Nation’s historic and cultural 

foundations. The National Historic Preservation 

Act- (1) authorized the National Register of 

Historic Places, (2) established the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation and a National 

Trust Fund to administer grants for historic 

preservation, and (3) authorized the 

development of regulations to require Federal 

agencies to consider the effects of federally 

assisted activities on properties included on or 

eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places. Also see NATIONAL REGISTER OF 

HISTORIC PLACES. 

NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL - One of 

the three categories of national trails defined in 

the National Trails System Act of 1968 that can 

only be established by act of Congress and are 

administered by Federal agencies, although part 

or all of their land base may be owned and 

managed by others. National historic trails are 

generally more than 100 miles long and follow 

as closely as possible and practicable the 

original trails or routes of travel of national 

historic significance. Their purpose is 

identifying and protecting the historic route and 

its remnants and artifacts for public use and 

enjoyment. 

NATIONAL MONUMENT- An area 

designated to protect objects of scientific and 

historic interest by public proclamation of the 

President under the Antiquities Act of 1906, or 

by Congress for historic landmarks, historic and 

prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic 

or scientific interest on public lands. 

Designation also provides for the management 

of these features and values. 

NATIONAL RECREATION TRAILOne of the three categories of national trails 

defined in the National Trails System Act of 

1968 that can only be established by act of 

Congress and are administered by federal 
Glossary 

669 

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. 

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. 
Glossary 

670 

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. 

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; and (3) any vehicle whose use is 

expressly authorized by a permit, lease, license, 

agreement, or contract issued by an authorized 

officer or otherwise approved. (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 
Glossary 

671 

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 

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 if- 

• Any 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; 
Glossary 

672 

• There is paid public advertising to seek 

participants; or 

• 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 apply- 

• Participants 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. 
Glossary 

673 

POOL- A portion of a stream that has reduced 

current velocity and often water deeper than 

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 

ROUTE 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. 

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 

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. 
Glossary 

674 

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 

(ROUTE) - See ROAD AND ROUTE 

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 

675 

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 

676 

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 

677 

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 

678 

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 - (From BLM 9100 manual) ...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. 

ROADSIDE - a general term denoting the area 

adjoining the outer edge of the road. 
Glossary 

679 

ROAD AND ROUTE TYPESPrimary Road - A regularly maintained 

route, paved or unpaved, wide enough for at 

least two vehicles to pass. Provides access 

between two major points. Serves a large area 

with many routes of lesser quality branching 

from it. 

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. 

Single-Track Route - A route up to 1/2 

meter wide upon which all-terrain vehicles or 

trucks are not allowed. 

Way - A road-like feature used by vehicles 

having four or more wheels but not declared a 

road by the owner. A way receives no 

maintenance to guarantee regular and continuous 

use. 

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 (route) - 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. 
Glossary 

680 

SECONDARY ROAD - See ROAD AND 

ROUTE TYPES. 

SECTION - 640 acres, 1 mile square. 

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. 
Glossary 

681 

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. 

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 ROUTE- See ROAD 

AND ROUTE 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. 
Glossary 

682 

SPLIT-ESTATE - Land whose surface rights 

and mineral rights are owned by different 

entities. 

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. 
Glossary 

683 

SUBSTRATE - (1) Mineral and organic 

material forming the bottom of a waterway or 

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 

ROUTE 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- (Interagency definition) Linear route 

managed for human powered, stock, or off 

highway vehicle forms of recreation or for 

historic or heritage values. Trails are not 

generally managed for use by four wheel drive 

or high clearance vehicles. 

TRAILHEAD - The terminus of a hiking, 

horse, or bicycle trail accessible by motor 

vehicle and sometimes having parking, signs, a 

visitor register, and camping and sanitary 

facilities. 

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. 
Glossary 

684 

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. 

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. 
Glossary 

685 

VANDALISM (CULTURAL 

RESOURCE) - Malicious damage or the 

unauthorized collecting, excavating, or defacing 

of cultural resources. Section 6 of the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act states 

that "no person may excavate, remove, damage, 

or otherwise alter or deface any archaeological 

resource located on public lands or Indian 

lands...unless such activity is pursuant to a 

permit issued under section 4 of this Act." 

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 
Glossary 

686 

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. 

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. 

WAY- See ROAD AND ROUTE TYPES. 

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 
Glossary 

687 

together, are an indication of an area’s 

naturalness. These attributes may include the 

presence or absence of roads and trails, fences 

and other improvements; the nature and extent 

of landscape modifications; the presence of 

native vegetation communities; and the 

connectivity of habitats. 

Solitude and Primitive/Unconfined 

Recreation - Visitors may have outstanding 

opportunities for solitude, or primitive and 

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 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 

688 

Additional Tables 

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 DFC 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 DFC 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 

DFC 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 DFC 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 

DFC 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 DFC 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 DFC 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 DFC 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 

689 

From Chapter Three: 

Table 3-5. Population and Household Characteristics 

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

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. 

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 

690 

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 $31,721,521 $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 
Additional Tables 

691 

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 

692 

From Chapter Four: 

Table 4-2. Population Growth and Emissions Generated by Land Disposal Parcels Inside Air Quality Nonattainment 

Areas 

Emission Factors Parcels Within 

Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Parcels Within 

PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Alternative 

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

Table 4-4. Acres Closed to Mining by Alternative 
Additional Tables 

693 

 

Alternative A 

Closed to Saleable Minerals 172,510 

Closed to Locatable Minerals 171,680 

Closed to Leasable Minerals 171,680 

Alternative B 

Closed to Saleable Minerals 268,260 

Closed to Locatable Minerals 171,680 

Closed to Leasable Minerals 171,680 

Alternative C 

Closed to Saleable Minerals 325,970 

Closed to Locatable Minerals 188,450 

Closed to Leasable Minerals 188,190 

Alternative D 

Closed to Saleable Minerals 469,680 

Closed to Locatable Minerals 446,440 

Closed to Leasable Minerals 453,550 

Alternative E 

Closed to Saleable Minerals 172,780 

Closed to Locatable Minerals 171,940 

Closed to Leasable Minerals 171,680 

 

Table 4-7 - Acres of Inventoried Mineral Potential that would be Closed by Alternative. 
Additional Tables 

694 

Alternative Mineral Type Mineral Potential Federal 

Acres 

Federal Acres 

Closed 

% closed 

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 32,750 11.7 

Marble 6,170 0 0.0 

Saleable 

Sand and Gravel 7,060 450 6.4 

Geothermal 45,830 370 0.8 

Oil and Gas 790 6 0.8 

Leasable 

Salt Deposit 45,480 1,620 3.6 

High Potential 94,100 3,170 3.4 

A – No 

Action 

Locatable 

Moderate Potential 737,400 60,820 8.2 

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 48,910 17.5 

Marble 6,170 6,090 98.7 

Saleable 

Sand and Gravel 7,060 350 5.0 

Geothermal 45,830 360 0.8 

Oil and Gas 790 0 0.0 

Leasable 

Salt Deposit 45,480 1,670 3.7 

High Potential 94,100 3,950 4.2 

B 

Locatable 

Moderate Potential 737,400 120,430 16.3 

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 65,220 23.4 

Marble 6,170 5,620 91.1 

Saleable 

Sand and Gravel 7,060 350 5.0 

Geothermal 45,830 0 0.0 

Oil and Gas 790 0 0.0 

Leasable 

Salt Deposit 45,480 1,670 3.7 

High Potential 94,100 12,920 13.7 

C 

Locatable 

Moderate Potential 737,400 152,510 20.7 

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 93,870 33.7 

Marble 6,170 5,620 91.1 

Saleable 

Sand and Gravel 7,060 450 6.4 

Geothermal 45,830 2,030 4.4 

Oil and Gas 790 0 0.0 

Leasable 

Salt Deposit 45,480 14,410 31.7 

High Potential 94,100 47,000 49.9 

D 

Locatable 

Moderate Potential 737,400 314,990 42.7 

Volcanic and Intrusive Rock 278,890 48,250 17.3 

Marble 6,170 300 4.9 

E – Agency 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Saleable 

Sand and Gravel 7,060 630 8.9 
Additional Tables 

695 

Geothermal 45,830 370 0.8 

Oil and Gas 790 6 0.8 

Leasable 

Salt Deposit 45,480 1,690 3.7 

High Potential 94,100 3,950 4.2 

Locatable 

Moderate Potential 737,400 112,070 15.2 
Appendix A 

696 

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. 
Appendix A 

697 

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. 

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. 
Appendix A 

698 

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. 

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 

699 

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 PFO 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 PFO 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. 

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 
Appendix B 

700 

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 PFO 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 PFO 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 

recorded as “other.” The “other” category included signed petitions as well as formatted template letters 

from organized stakeholder groups. 
Appendix B 

701 

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

Figure ES-2. Public Response by Issue – Agua Fria National Monument Planning Area 
Appendix B 

702 

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 

Table 1. Classification of Issues Considered but Not Further Addressed 

Sub-Issue

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 trails 

Law Enforcement Increase law 

enforcement efforts 

Law Enforcement Increase preventative 

measures for vandalism 

Off-Highway 

Vehicle 

 Use volunteer help from 

OHV-affiliated groups 

Off-Highway 

Vehicle 

 Establish rules (and 

enforce where 

appropriate) for use of 

OHVs 

Grazing Evaluate grazing 
Appendix B 

703 

Sub-Issue

Issue Planning Classification B Planning Classification 

C 

Planning Classification 

D 

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 

Characteristics 

 Expand Agua 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 informed by BLM 

of pending changes 

 

Minerals Expand mining 

activities (A/F) 

Minerals Continue existing 

mining leases (A/F) 
Appendix B 

704 

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

Remove land from the disposal list 496 

Stop urban sprawl/No new development 133 

Restrict development to prevent depletion of groundwater 62 

Land Tenure 

Lands should be managed to preserve cultural and biological 

resources 

38 

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 

Develop multiple use areas 13 

General Recreation 

Trails should be better maintained to encourage users to stay on trails 12 

Maintain and allow OHV usage on existing trails 66 

Restrict and limit OHV usage on BLM lands 52 

Establish (or enforce where appropriate) rules for use of OHVs 44 

Establish educational program for OHV users 38 

Off-Highway Vehicles 

Use volunteer help from OHV-affiliated groups 32 

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 

Transportation Network 

Allow public access for nonmotorized 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 

Continue leases for grazing 35 

Limit grazing 28 

Grazing 

Evaluate grazing impacts 27 

Restrict access by livestock 12 

Maintain waters for livestock 3 

Riparian Resources 

Protect the instream flow of the Agua Fria River 4 

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 

Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources 

Allow only limited access to existing sites, such as through guided 4 
Appendix B 

705 

Issue Sub-Issue/Comment Total 

Count

tours 

Expand wilderness designations 28 

Conduct wilderness inventories 8 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Reduce amount of wilderness designation 2 

Reduce and limit mining activities 17 

Continue existing mining leases 14 

Mineral 

Expand mining activities 5 

Preserve habitat for birdwatching/wildlife viewing 18 

Maintain waters for wildlife 7 

General Wildlife and Fisheries 

General Wildlife and Fisheries 

Reintroduce native fish species to aquatic systems in the area 2 

Hazardous Materials / Solid 

Waste 

Increase preventative measures for litter/dumping 26 

Return natural fire cycles 9 

Debris and brush clearing programs need to be expanded 5 

Fire Management 

Return natural fire regime to mesa tops 3 

Conduct hydrological studies of watershed 3 

Restrict access to surface water from OHV users 2 

Soils, Water, and Air 

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 

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 

General Recreation 

Joint BLM/community land stewardship programs should be 

enacted 

8 

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 

Off-Highway Vehicles 

Develop additional trails 28 

Create environmentally sensitive transportation system 76 

Close and rehabilitate all vehicle routes that threaten cultural and 

biological resources 

56 

Designations should also be made for primitive areas & motorized 

areas 

34 

Maintain public access 29 

Limit access to discourage extensive use 27 

Transportation Network 

Allow public access for nonmotorized modes only 20 

Law Enforcement Increase law enforcement efforts 34 

Increase preventative measures for vandalism 7 

Expand wilderness designations 99 

Expand Agua Fria to include New River and Tonto National Forest 41 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Conduct wilderness inventories 22 

ACECs Agua Fria River should be designated Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

4 
Appendix B 

706 

Issue Sub-Issue/Comment Total 

Count 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Manage Agua Fria River as Wild & Scenic 90 

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 

Land Tenure 

Adjacent landowners should be better informed by BLM of pending 

changes 

5 

Evaluate grazing impacts 44 

Limit grazing 39 

Continue leases for grazing 16 

Grazing 

Reduce grazing fees 1 

Riparian Resources Protect the instream flow of the Agua Fria River 55 

Restrict access by livestock 27 

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 

Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources 

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 

Return natural fire regime to mesa tops 27 

Return natural fire cycles 21 

Fire Management 

Debris and brush clearing programs need to be expanded 2 

Preserve habitat for birdwatching/wildlife viewing 16 

Maintain waters for wildlife 14 

General Wildlife and Fisheries 

Management 

Reintroduce native fish species to aquatic systems in the area 3 

Reduce and limit mining activities 17 

Continue existing mining leases 4 

Mineral Rights 

Expand mining activities 4 

Hazardous Materials / Solid Waste Increase preventative measures for litter/dumping 17 

Conduct hydrological studies of watershed 2 

Restrict access to surface water from miners 1 

Soils, Water, and Air 

Restrict access to surface water from OHV users 1 
Appendix C 

707 

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 

708 

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 

709 

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 

710 

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 

711 

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 

own lists of threatened and endangered species which may be obtained by calling the appropriate State 
Appendix C 

712 

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 

713 

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 

714 

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 

715 

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 Preferred Alternative. 

Additional planning criteria can be added at any point in the planning process. The following are the 

Draft Planning Criteria as of the printing of this document. 

1. The 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 

716 

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 

717 

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. 
718 

Appendix D - Route Evaluation/DesignatioDecision Tree ProcessThe route designation process for the Phoenix Field Office is the sum of route and resource inventories, the BLM specialistpublic’s input. The process of designating routes is part of a larger effort to use the best management techniques in an everAs the population of Arizona grows, management of the land must reflect trends and in some cases, provide guidance to m

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 used by Phoenix Field Offroute is the Route Evaluation/Designation Decision Tree Process. This process uses a flow chart (See below) that systemat

evaluator through a series of questions that help assess the relationship of routes to sensitive resources and public access bo

route, as well as collectively or cumulatively as a network. Background data from state and federal agency inventories and 

the public provides the basis for evaluation. As specified by 43CFR8342.1, this process considers as part of its evaluation, sensitive resources including but not limited to threatened, endangered and sensitive species, and their habitat, as well as cu

resources. These impacts are jointly evaluated in the context of providing reasonable commercial and recreational public aseveral State and Federal acts. When the questions are answered by taking into account the best information available and 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 incorporated into an adaptive management plan. Route designation is considered an implementation action rather than a R

can be made to the designated route network land use plan, monument proclamation, NEPA and FLPMA and 43 CFR 8342or regulations that may apply.
719 

©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. 
720 

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 

concerns pertinent to route designation are identified. The patterns of these identified uses and concerns, as well as their trends are 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 commen

routes. 

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. 

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.
721 

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?

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 area 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 area designations (e.g. National Monuments)?

G. Is the continued use of this route likely to impact State or Fe

specially protected resources or objects identified by Agency pladesignations (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 roresources n

Y

N

N

Y N Y N Y 

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

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

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

Close 

04

Limit 

04 

Limit 

18 

Close 

21

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? 

Y N

Limit

06

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

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

Close

10

Limit

10

Limit

24

Close

27

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

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? 

Y N

Limit 

28 

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

Limit

14

Close

16

Y

©Les Weeks 2003

Patent Pending 

N

©Les W

Paten

Y N

Close 

01

Limit 

01 

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

01

Limit 

02 

Close 

02

Mitigate/ 

Open 

01

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

02
Appendix E 

722 

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 

723 

.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 

724 

.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 

725 

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 Field Office 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 

726 

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 

727 

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 Mountain Wilderness Area on the north, 

along with Humming Bird 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 

728 

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 

729 

Table H-1 – Priority Species List 

Priority wildlife species, their status, and occurrence in the planning area are described in the following table: 

Status

Common Name Scientific Name 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-tail Bat Nyctinomops macrotis BS - - p 

Black Bear Ursus americana - 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 elophus - 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 Felis 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 Lasiurs borealis - S - p 

Small-footed Myotis Myotis cilliolabrum 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 

Banded-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata - G - p 

Barn Owl Tyto alba - - R x 

Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii - - BCC x 

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle 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 

730 

Status

Common Name Scientific Name 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 Ardea alba - 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 

LeConte'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 calurus - - 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 Otus 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 

731 

Status

Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Other

Planning Area 

Occurrence

 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Arizona Skink Eumeces gilberti arizonensis - S - x 

Chuckwalla Sauromalus obesus 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 clarki 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 

MacNeil Sootywing 

Skipper Hesperopsis gracielae BS p 

 

Plants 

Arizona Giant Sedge Carex spissa var. ultra BS - - x 

California Flannelbush Fremontodendron californica 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 

732 

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. 

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 
Appendix I 

733 

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). 

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 
Appendix I 

734 

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. 

BLM Wilderness Inventories and Public Wilderness Proposals 
Appendix I 

735 

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 

736 

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 
Appendix I 

737 

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. 

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. 
Appendix I 

738 

Naturalness. Lands and resources exhibit a high degree of naturalness when affected primarily by the 

forces of nature and where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. BLM has 

authority to inventory, assess, and/or monitor the attributes of the lands and resources on public lands, 

which, taken together, are an indication of an area’s naturalness. These attributes may include the 

presence or absence of roads and trails, fences and other improvements; the nature and extent of 

landscape modifications; the presence of native vegetation communities; and the connectivity of habitats. 

Solitude and Primitive/Unconfined Recreation. Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for 

solitude, or primitive and 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? 
Appendix I 

739 

New information or changed circumstances alone, however, or the failure to consider a factor or matter of 

little consequence, may not be sufficient basis to require additional NEPA consideration prior to 

implementing a previously approved decision. For example, the fact that roads and trails have become 

overgrown since previous inventories were completed represents a changed circumstance. Such change is 

most likely the result of natural environmental processes and, alone, may not be sufficient to require the 

preparation of additional NEPA documentation. The fact that BLM did not specifically analyze impacts 

of the proposed action on wilderness characteristics identified since the current land use plan or NEPA 

document was prepared is not an omission that, alone, would indicate that additional NEPA consideration 

is required. In all cases then, BLM should evaluate: 1) the extent to which the new information presents 

potential significant environmental consequences associated with the proposed action that were not 

analyzed in the previous NEPA analysis; and 2) whether those consequences are of significant gravity in 

context or intensity. 

Case Law on Supplementation of NEPA

The lead case from the United States Supreme Court on supplementation is Marsh v Oregon Natural 

Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989). It provides that “an agency need not supplement an EIS every 

time new information comes to light after the EIS is finalized. To require otherwise would render agency 

decision-making intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new information 

outdated by the time the decision is made.” Id. at 373. 

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. 

 
Appendix I 

740 

Desired Future Conditions – Describe Desired Future Conditions for wilderness characteristics using 

the verbs “maintain, enhance 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. 

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 or enhance 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 

741 

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 
 Appendix J 

742 

mouse (Peromyscus eremicus), white-throated wood rat (Neotoma albigula), gray fox (Urocyon 

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 

743 

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 

744 

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 

745 

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 

746 

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 

747 

(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 

748 

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 

749 

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 Field Office 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: 

1. 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. 

2. 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). 

3. 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. 

4. Any changes to the approved Plan of Operations must first be approved by the BLM authorized 

officer. This includes the use of subcontractors. 

5. 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.

6. 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. 

7. 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. 
 Appendix K 

750 

8. A copy of this permit and the stipulations must be carried by guides during all tours conducted on 

BLM administered lands, and must be made available to any BLM employee or client upon request. 

9. 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. 

10. All signs on public lands must be authorized by the BLM in writing. 

11. 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. 

12. 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. 

13. 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. 

14. 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: 

1. 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. 

2. 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. 

3. 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. 

4. Historical mine sites should not be disturbed. Collecting artifacts from these sites is strictly 

prohibited. 
 Appendix K 

751 

5. All persons operating under this SRP, including subcontractors, are prohibited from entering 

abandoned mines. 

6. 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). 

7. 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. 

11. 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. 

12. 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. 

< Minimize campfire impacts. 

< Respect wildlife. 

< Be considerate of other visitors. 

Motorized Vehicle Use: 

1. 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. 
 Appendix K 

752 

2. 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, 

< Allow for future use of the outdoors, leave it better than you found it, and 

< Discover the rewards of responsible recreation.
 Appendix L 

753 

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. 

Refer to appendix B for a map deplicting FMUs. 
 Appendix L 

754 

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 

Appendix C for a map depicting 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 

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. 
 Appendix L 

755 

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 

Fuel Conditions 

Threats and values to be protected 

Cost efficiencies 
 Appendix L 

756 

A map showing the location of the FMUs can be found in Appendix D. A statewide natural fire regime 

map can be found in Appendix E. A statewide fire condition class map can be found in Appendix F. 

These maps can be referenced for questions on fire regimes or condition class for the specific FMU. 

FMU #2 Description- PFO Desert North of Interstate 10 

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. 
 Appendix L 

757 

Values at Risk 

Air Quality – The metropolitan area of Phoenix is a PM-10, Carbon Monoxide, and Ozone nonattainment 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 – Aqua 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. 
 Appendix L 

758 

e) Communities at Risk 

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 

759 

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. 
 Appendix L 

760 

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 

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- PFO 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 

761 

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 Field Office 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 Field Office 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 and Hassayampa 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 

762 

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 

763 

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 

764 

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 Field Office 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 

765 

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- PFO 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 

766 

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 

767 

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 Field office 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 Field Office 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 

768 

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. 

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 
 Appendix L 

769 

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 

770 

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. The 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- PFO 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 

771 

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 

772 

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 

773 

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 

774 

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 

775 

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 

776 

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; insure 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 

777 

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 

778 

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 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 or Enhance 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 

779 

Special 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 

780 

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 or enhance 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 

781 

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 

782 

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 

783 

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 

784 

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 

785 

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 

786 

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 

787 

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 

788 

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) 

WF-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats. 

 
 Appendix P 

789 

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 

provide reasonable protection of identified nesting and roosting trees (see Conservation Measure 

FT-4). 
 Appendix P 

790 

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. 

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 
 Appendix P 

791 

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

(Pediocactus sileri), Acuña Cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis), Fickeisen Plains 

Cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae). 
 Appendix P 

792 

1

The Interagency Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook, Exhibit 4-2, BLM 

supplemental guidance, page 5 of 9 (http://fire.r9.fws.gov/ifcc/ESR/handbook/4PolicyGuidance.htm) 

establishes the following policy for livestock exclusion following burns: 

Exclusion of livestock is critical for the recovery of burned vegetation or establishment and maintenance 

of new seedings and use of these areas should not be permitted until the vegetation recovers or is 

established. Both re-vegetated and, burned but not 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 

793 

Appendix Q-1. Riparian Functional Condition Fria National Monument 

Definitions 

PFC = Proper Functioning Condition UP = Upward Trend 

NA

FAR = Functioning At Risk NAT = No Apparent Trend 

Conditions: 

NF = Non-Functioning 

Trends: 

DWN = Downward Trend 

AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Stream Segment 

# 

BLM 

(miles)

Other 

(miles)

Total 

(miles)

Condition Trend Miles per 

Condition/Trend 

E

1-H 0.40 1.60 2.00 PFC NA 0.40 

1-I 2.20 0.20 2.40 PFC NA 2.20 

1-J 2.60 0.00 2.60 FAR UP 2.60 

1-K 2.10 0.40 2.50 PFC NA 2.10 

1-L 2.00 0.00 2.00 PFC NA 2.00 

1-M 3.00 0.00 3.00 FAR UP 3.00 

1-N 3.30 0.60 3.90 FAR UP 3.30 

1-O 2.40 0.00 2.40 FAR NAT 2.40 

Agua Fria River

1-P 2.40 0.30 2.70 FAR NAT 2.40 

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 

72-B 0.90 0.00 0.90 PFC NA 0.90 

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 Big Bug Creek 45-A 0.83 0.00 0.83 FAR UP 0.83 Bishop Creek 42-A 2.00 0.00 2.00 PFC NA 2.00 
 Appendix Q-1 

794 

Dry Creek 77-A 0.80 0.00 0.80 FAR DWN 0.80 Indian Creek 44-A 2.10 0.00 2.10 FAR DWN 2.10 

44-B 4.00 0.00 4.00 FAR NAT 4.00 

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 Larry Creek 79-A 1.00 0.00 1.00 PFC NA 1.00 Larry Creek Tributary 8-A 0.60 0.00 0.60 PFC NA 0.60 Little Ash Creek 73-A 1.40 0.00 1.40 FAR DWN 1.40 

73-B 0.40 0.60 1.00 PFC NA 0.40 

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 Silver Creek 43-A 1.00 0.00 1.00 FAR UP 1.00 

43-B 2.00 0.00 2.00 PFC NA 2.00 

43-C 2.00 0.00 2.00 FAR UP 2.00 

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 

46-B 0.60 0.00 0.60 PFC NA 0.60 

46-C 1.20 2.00 3.20 PFC NA 1.20 

Stream Total 3.70 2.70 6.40 Total PFC/NA 1.80 

 Total FAR/UP 1.90 

Overall BLM Other Total PFC/NA FAR/UP FAR/NAT FAR/DWN Total for AFNM 47.79 7.50 55.29 18.30 16.39 8.80 4.30 
 Appendix Q-2 

795 

Appendix Q-2. Riparian Functional Condition Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Definitions 

PFC = Proper Functioning Condition UP = Upward Trend NA = Not Applicable FAR = Functioning At Risk NAT = No Apparent Trend 

Conditions: 

NF = Non-Functioning 

Trends:

DWN = Downward Trend 

BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA PLANNING AREA 

Stream Segment # BLM 

(miles) 

Other 

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

Condition Trend Miles per 

Condition/Tre

Agua Fria River 1-D 1.54 0.62 2.16 PFC NA 1.54  1-E 0.85 0.65 1.50 FAR NAT 0.85  1-F 0.77 0.50 1.27 FAR NAT 0.77  1-G 2.65 0.00 2.65 PFC NA 2.65  1-Q 0.60 0.00 0.60 FAR UP 0.60 

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 FAR UP 1.90 Antelope Creek 67-A 2.00 0.60 2.60 FAR NAT 2.00  67-B 0.70 0.10 0.80 PFC NA 0.70  67-C 1.00 0.80 1.80 PFC NA 1.00 

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 FAR DWN 0.20 

16-B 0.70 0.10 0.80 FAR DWN 0.70 

16-C 1.60 3.50 5.10 PFC NA 1.60 

Stream Total 2.50 4.70 7.20 Total PFC/NA 1.60 

 Total FAR/DWN 0.90 

27-A 1.20 1.30 2.50 PFC NA 1.20 27-B 2.40 1.80 4.20 PFC NA 2.40 

Banty Creek 

27-C 2.00 1.20 3.20 FAR NAT 2.00 
 Appendix Q-2 

796 

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 Bitter Creek 22-A 1.85 0.00 1.85 FAR DWN 1.85 Black Canyon Creek 2-A 1.04 0.00 1.04 PFC NA 1.04 

2-B 1.40 0.00 1.40 FAR NAT 1.40 

2-C 1.35 0.15 1.50 FAR DWN 1.35 2-D 1.96 0.00 1.96 FAR NAT 1.96 

2-E 

1.54 0.00 1.54 FAR NAT 1.54 

2-F 2.80 0.00 2.80 FAR NAT 2.80 

2-G 0.72 0.00 0.72 FAR NAT 0.72 

2-H 1.92 0.00 1.92 FAR NAT 1.92 

2-I 1.11 0.12 1.23 FAR NAT 1.11 

2-J 0.85 0.00 0.85 FAR NAT 0.85 

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 

34-C 4.50 3.00 7.50 PFC NA 4.50 34-D 1.40 1.40 2.80 PFC NA 1.40 

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 Buckhorn Spring 24-A 0.40 0.00 0.40 PFC NA 0.40 Bumble Bee Creek 6-A 0.54 0.00 0.54 FAR NAT 0.54 

6-D 0.62 0.00 0.62 FAR NAT 0.62 

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 Castle Creek 4-A 0.81 0.00 0.81 FAR NAT 0.81 

4-B 0.81 0.00 0.81 FAR NAT 0.81 

4-C 1.02 0.00 1.02 FAR NAT 1.02 

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 

18-C 0.10 0.70 0.80 FAR UP 0.10 

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 

15-B 1.10 3.70 4.80 FAR NAT 1.10 
 Appendix Q-2 

797 

15-C 0.80 0.20 1.00 FAR NAT 0.80 

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 Cow Creek 83-A 0.40 0.80 1.20 FAR NAT 0.40 East Antelope Creek 68-B 0.90 1.40 2.30 PFC NA 0.90 French Gulch 69-A 1.30 0.00 1.30 FAR UP 1.30 Galena Gulch 47-A 0.80 0.00 0.80 FAR NAT 0.80 Hassayampa River 14-C 0.70 0.00 0.70 FAR NAT 0.70 

14-D 0.60 0.80 1.40 FAR NAT 0.60 

14-E 1.50 1.90 3.40 NF NA 1.50 

14-F 1.70 1.80 3.50 FAR NAT 1.70 

14-G 1.90 0.00 1.90 PFC NA 1.90 

14-H 5.10 0.20 5.30 FAR UP 5.10 

14-I 1.20 0.00 1.20 PFC NA 1.20 

14-J 0.00 1.40 1.40 PFC NA 0.00 

14-K 2.60 0.90 3.50 PFC NA 2.60 

14-L 0.55 1.45 2.00 PFC NA 0.55 

14-M 0.40 0.00 0.40 FAR NAT 0.40 

14-N 0.50 0.00 0.50 PFC NA 0.50 

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 

30-C 1.20 0.00 1.20 PFC NA 1.20 30-D 0.61 1.82 2.43 FAR UP 0.61 

30-E 1.20 0.00 1.20 FAR DWN 1.20 

30-F 2.20 0.70 2.90 FAR DWN 2.20 

30-H 0.70 3.30 4.00 FAR NAT 0.70 

30-I 2.20 0.30 2.50 PFC NA 2.20 

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 
 Appendix Q-2 

798 

Oak Creek 19-A 0.75 1.00 1.75 PFC NA 0.75 

19-B 0.79 0.00 0.79 PFC NA 0.79 

19-C 0.65 1.65 2.30 FAR UP 0.65 19-D 1.30 0.00 1.30 FAR UP 1.30 

19-E 0.20 0.50 0.70 FAR UP 0.20 

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 FAR NAT 0.20 Spring Creek 20-A 0.25 2.25 2.50 FAR NAT 0.25 

20-B 0.60 2.00 2.60 FAR UP 0.60 

20-C 0.40 0.00 0.40 FAR NAT 0.40 20-D 0.90 0.00 0.90 FAR NAT 0.90 

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 FAR NAT 0.70 Tule Creek 10-E 1.27 0.00 1.27 PFC NA 1.27 Weaver Creek 70-B 0.40 0.80 1.20 FAR NAT 0.40 Overall Totals for BLM Other Total PFC/NA FAR/UP FAR/NAT FAR/DWN Bradshaw-Harquahala 92.59 51.45 144.04 35.14 12.36 33.19 9.40 
 Index 

799 

Index 

A 

ABANDONED MINES, 

s-iii, 17, 422, 751 

ACCESS, 8, 14, 16, 20-24, 

44, 45, 47, 50, 52, 56-120, 

124-126, 128-135, 137-139, 

142,144, 148, 150, 152-154, 

158-160, 166-168, 197-207, 

209, 210, 212-226-282, 284, 

288, 292, 300, 303, 309, 310, 

312, 314, 321, 323, 327, 328, 

331, 333, 334, 338-341, 343, 

350, 353, 356, 357, 360, 361, 

364, 365, 370, 372, 373-377, 

379, 380,382, 383, 385, 386, 

388, 391, 429, 433, 44, 446, 

447, 451, 459, 461, 466, 471, 

473, 482, 485, 489, 491, 502, 

511, 512-515, 518, 521,522, 

527, 528, 530, 532, 534-536, 

539-541, 544-548, 552-555, 

557-559, 565, 572, 573, 575, 

576, 580, 582, 588, 591, 594, 

595, 597, 602, 603, 605-619, 

622, 623, 625-627, 629, 630, 

632, 634-638, 643-648, 655, 

670, 679, 692, 693, 695, 696, 

700, 703, 728, 729, 740, 741, 

744 

ACQUIRED LANDS, 47, 

282, 283, 708, 742 

AIR QUALITY, 39, 46, 47, 

145, 146-148, 223, 236-262, 

269, 293, 296, 303, 304-306, 

308, 332, 346 351, 366, 382, 

391, 394, 399, 464-477, 484, 

537, 566, 573, 592, 597, 621, 

641-645, 651, 658, 660, 664, 

715, 732, 773, 787, 788, 791, 

795, 800, 805, 821 

ALLOTMENT, 15, 18, 46, 

55, 68, 69, 97, 101, 133, 136, 

172, 176, 234-236, 271, 288, 

290, 292, 317, 354-356, 358, 

359, 388, 416, 417, 459, 475, 

486, 505, 524,573, 577-581, 

583, 584, 605,630, 633, 635, 

639, 658, 669, 680, 708 

ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE 

(ATV), 14, 66, 75, 76, 81, 

82, 106, 107, 110, 111, 116, 

117, 180-189, 190, 193, 197, 

200, 201, 204, 251, 268, 412, 

429, 609 

AQUATIC HABITATS,

708, 822-825, 827, 828 

ARCHEOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES, 121, 167, 

170, 326, 327, 333, 541, 669, 

670, 686, 708, 719, 727, 728, 

AREAS OF CRITICAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERN (ACEC), 5, 11, 

13, 22, 43, 46, 59, 90, 120, 

129, 153, 194, 204, 283, 394, 

433, 480, 729, 765, 789, 791, 

795, 805, 806, 813-816 

ARIZONA GAME AND 

FISH DEPARTMENT 

(AGFD), 10, 33, 39, 146, 

147, 191, 197, 224, 292, 403, 

405, 431, 497, 654, 724 

ARIZONA LAND 

HEALTH STANDARDS 

(ALHS), 17, 233,245, 254, 

260,266, 271 

ARIZONA STANDARDS 

FOR RANGELAND 

HEALTH AND

GUIDELINES FOR 

GRAZING 

ADMINISTRATION, 523, 

524, 531, 642, 664, 706, 708 

ARIZONA STATE 

IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN (SIP), 14, 431 

B 

BACK COUNTRY 

BYWAYS, 36, 51, 69, 84, 

123, 157, 179, 186, 187, 232, 

286-288, 314, 323, 347, 367, 

379, 389, 428, 429, 431, 434-

436, 439, 461, 503, 509, 525, 

622, 626, 630, 

BACK COUNTRY RMZ, 

44, 59, 60, 65-67, 90, 93, 97, 

99, 129, 131, 135, 166, 168, 

170, 174, 244, 249, 329, 334, 

357, 383, 438, 440, 455, 472, 

473, 486, 502, 503, 521, 522, 

527, 543 See. 

BICYCLING, 230, 264, 655 

BIGHORN SHEEP, 25, 25, 

54, 57, 108, 120, 122, 144, 

153, 154, 157, 208, 210, 223, 

225, 252, 313,315, 318, 356, 

403, 490, 491, 493, 494, 497-

499, 505-508, 655, 759, 773, 

774, 790, 791, 795 

BIOLOGICAL 

ASSESSMENT, 291, 431, 

670, 671 

BIOLOGICAL 

EVALUATION, 431, 658, 

670, 671 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION, 

48, 223, 431, 597, 671 

BLACK CANYON 

MANAGEMENT UNITS, 

75 

BLM SENSITIVE 

SPECIES, 761, 791, 795, 

800, 805 

BLOODY BASIN ROAD, 

59, 61, 65, 92-94, 97, 98, 

134, 164, 166, 168, 173, 243, 

313, 330, 344, 354, 365, 374, 

386, 387, 395, 414, 433, 435, 

467, 471, 491, 493, 502, 518, 

535, 557, 562, 577, 585, 608-

610, 633, 635, 638, 805 

BURRO HERD AREA 

(HA), 57 

BURRO HERD 

MANAGEMENT AREA 

(HMA), 52, 57, 271 

C 

CAMPGROUNDS, 61-64, 

94, 96, 131, 133, 168, 169, 

171, 220, 261, 262, 316, 439, 

502, 503, 544, 569, 629, 

CAMPING, 44, 49, 61-64, 

71, 72, 75, 79, 80, 84, 94-96, 

105, 110, 114-117, 123-133, 
 Index 

800 

140, 141, 150, 151, 154, 167-

168, 170, 171, 178, 182, 183, 

190, 191, 198-209, 214, 215, 

230, 234, 254, 260, 264, 267, 

281, 325, 334, 335, 349, 412, 

413, 438, 439, 457, 472, 474, 

520, 522, 525-536,542, 546, 

548, 549, 550, 556, 557, 570, 

599, 605, 694, 700, 791, 800, 

805, 814, 815 

CANDIDATE SPECIES, 6, 

12, 218, 223, 279, 289, 291, 

404 

CASTLE HOT SPRINGS 

MANAGEMENT UNITS, 

230 

CASUAL USE (MINING), 

64, 97, 134, 320, 620, 622, 

655 

CASUAL USE 

(RECREATION), 260, 655 

CATCHMENT, 656, 663, 

686, 779, 780, 

COMPETITIVE RACE, 

64, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, 

98, 102, 104, 107, 108, 109, 

110, 112, 116, 134, 140, 144, 

174, 183, 186, 191, 194, 195 

COMPETITIVE USE, 254, 

406, 672 

COMMUNICATION 

SITES, 47, 52, 53, 70, 74, 

83, 86, 104, 108, 113, 121, 

125, 126, 134, 145, 149, 156, 

159, 160, 162, 178, 187, 195, 

208, 212, 220, 240, 255, 280, 

285, 299, 301, 309, 313, 314, 

398, 447, 452, 453, 482, 495, 

496, 529, 579, 621, 689, 792, 

800 

CONCESSIONS, 53-56, 86-

88, 89, 160, 162, 163, 800 

CORRIDOR, 6, 13, 14, 17, 

22-25, 32, 36, 47, 48, 52, 58, 

60, 65, 68, 70, 72, 81, 84, 85, 

92, 93, 101, 102, 104, 106, 

118, 122, 124, 126, 129, 130, 

136, 139, 140, 142, 143, 

152,157, 161-163, 165, 170, 

172, 175, 178-182, 184, 187, 

189, 195, 197, 203, 208, 210, 

212, 214, 215, 219, 223, 240, 

243, 250, 252, 254, 255, 257, 

269, 272, 280, 285, 286, 293, 

294, 295, 298-301, 304, 305, 

309, 311, 313, 314, 322, 323, 

330-333, 344-346, 353-356, 

361, 378, 390, 397, 398, 403, 

405, 410, 434-439, 441-443, 

446, 447-449, 451-456, 466, 

468-471, 481-483, 488, 491, 

492, 494-496, 499-502, 511-

541, 519, 529, 533. 535-539, 

541, 543, 555-558, 562-566, 

575, 576, 578-580, 596, 608, 

609, 613, 615, 620, 627, 628, 

631, 632, 634-637, 639, 640, 

670, 673, 674, 676, 689, 693, 

696, 703 

CRITICAL HABITAT, 

DESIGNATED, 216, 400, 

657 

CROSS COUNTRY 

TRAVEL, 423 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

2, 3, 4, 6-11, 14, 16, 18, 24, 

36, 37, 44, 48, 51, 54, 60, 68, 

71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 

86-88, 90, 93, 100, 104, 107-

109, 111, 112, 116, 120, 122, 

125, 127, 129-131, 140, 143, 

145, 150, 157, 154-156, 159, 

160, 162, 166, 174, 179, 186, 

187, 195, 196, 200, 205, 206, 

208, 209, 212, 228, 229, 233, 

235, 238, 241, 243, 251, 252, 

255, 259, 269, 270, 279-281, 

284, 287, 291, 316, 321-329, 

333, 336, 342, 347, 363, 376, 

386, 395, 408, 409, 411, 438, 

439, 442, 447, 500-529, 533, 

534, 539-542, 555, 556, 563, 

568, 592, 593, 598, 601, 604, 

612, 632-634, 636, 643, 649, 

651, 652, 674, 675, 686, 691, 

702 

CULTURAL RESOURCE 

INVENTORY (SURVEY), 

675 

CULTURAL SITES, 22, 

65-67, 76, 98, 99, 103, 107, 

130, 134, 139, 143, 154, 158, 

167, 173, 185, 193, 204, 206, 

244, 268, 305, 323, 324, 326, 

327, 348, 367, 371, 376, 382, 

383, 410, 412, 413, 500, 512, 

513, 517, 519, 520, 523, 530, 

539, 540, 563, 569, 609, 612, 

622 

CUMULATIVE 

IMPACTS, 20, 21, 390, 432, 

640, 641, 643, 644-646, 675 

D 

DECISION RECORD, 239, 

675, 691, 

DESERT TORTOISE, 2, 

12, 14, 17, 19, 22, 27, 35, 36, 

40, 108, 122, 128, 144, 153, 

157, 160, 192, 208, 210, 221-

223, 252, 262, 271, 272, 313-

318, 320, 323, 342, 343, 407, 

408, 414, 446, 490-495, 497, 

499-502, 504, 506-509, 537-

539, 556, 557, 559, 641, 655, 

663, 720, 761, 774, 775, 784, 

791, 792, 795, 800, 801 

DESIGNATED 

CORRIDOR, 52, 136, 219, 

255, 285, 397, 398, 469, 673, 

676, 

DESIRED PLANT 

COMMUNITY (DPC), 68, 

228, 235, 288, 659, 676 

DESERT TORTOISE 

HABITAT, 14, 17, 22, 108, 

128, 144, 160, 192, 221-223, 

271, 272, 313, 314-316, 318, 

320, 340m, 407, 408, 414, 

446, 491-495, 499-502, 506, 

507, 509, 537, 538, 556, 663, 

676 

DESIGNATED ROADS 

AND TRAIL, S46, 51, 58, 

454, 467, 608 

DESIRED FUTURE 

CONDITIONS, 22, 42, 58-

63, 65-69, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 

81, 92, 94-96, 99, 102, 105, 

106, 108, 110, 113, 115-118, 

124, 127, 129, 131, 132, 134, 

135, 137, 141, 144, 147, 150, 

151, 154, 155, 157, 164, 167, 
 Index 

801 

169, 170, 172-174, 197-199, 

201, 201, 206, 207, 210, 211, 

214, 215, 217, 221, 226, 233, 

236, 247, 248, 250, 259, 361, 

621, 624, 712, 771, 773, 774, 

776-779 

DEVELOPED 

RECREATION SITES 

AND AREAS, 264 

DISPERSED CAMPING, 

44, 61, 62, 64, 94, 131, 132, 

167, 169, 170, 260, 334, 335, 

367, 413, 438, 439, 472, 544, 

546, 548, 549, 556, 599 

DISPERSED 

RECREATION, 49, 344, 

545, 559, 613, 676 

DISPOSAL ,22-24, 32, 50-

54, 56, 68, 69, 70, 74, 76, 83, 

85-88, 100-104, 106, 108, 

110-113, 116, 118, 120, 121, 

124, 126, 136, 137, 139, 141-

146, 148, 149, 150, 152, 154-

162, 175, 176, 178, 178, 184, 

186, 187, 192, 195, 208, 218, 

220, 223, 248, 254, 271, 284, 

285, 287, 301, 304, 309, 311, 

313, 314, 321, 322, 327, 331, 

340, 345, 346, 355, 361, 365, 

384, 389, 390, 392, 395, 397, 

400, 428, 438, 445, 446, 452, 

460, 465, 466, 468, 481, 482, 

488, 497-507, 510, 512-514, 

525, 535, 536, 553, 554, 563, 

566, 578, 579, 586-591, 594, 

596, 616, 617, 624,625, 628, 

631, 632, 634, 635, 637, 639, 

641, 643, 645, 646, 684, 687, 

715, 728, 733, 735 

E 

ENDANGERED SPECIES, 

9, 14, 48, 74, 91, 92, 108, 

143, 186, 218, 223, 225, 279, 

282, 288, 291, 406, 449-490, 

497, 498, 659, 665, 670, 671, 

677, 684, 688, 697, 700, 736, 

745 

ENDUROS, 673, 707, 709 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT (EA), 15, 

495, 677, 765 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

(EIS), 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 

27, 28, 30, 34, 39, 42, 46, 48, 

223, 234, 273, 285, 290, 291, 

395, 398, 415, 424, 432, 464, 

466, 856, 658, 659, 663, 664, 

659, 672, 677, 678, 679, 685, 

689, 691, 696, 708, 724, 733 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE (EJ), 13, 16, 20, 

21, 37, 38, 390, 425-426, 

640, 659, 678 

EQUESTRIAN, 32, 65-67, 

71, 76, 79, 80, 82, 98, 99, 

105, 107, 115, 116, 119, 123-

124, 127, 128, 134, 140, 141, 

147, 151, 168, 173, 180, 181, 

183, 185, 189, 192, 193, 197-

200, 203, 214, 215, 245, 249-

252, 257, 260-264, 270, 281, 

282, 335, 380, 386, 425, 484, 

537, 542, 544, 547, 555, 558, 

607, 613, 615, 629, 673, 753, 

805, 806, 814, 815 

EROSION, 13, 17, 47, 53, 

168, 216, 217, 228, 234, 235, 

257, 266, 274, 275, 296, 300-

303, 309-313, 317, 321, 323, 

326, 329, 355, 375, 411, 413, 

441, 451-463, 470, 478-491, 

497, 504, 511-515, 517, 523, 

524, 526, 529, 531, 580, 597, 

611, 668, 690, 695, 696, 699, 

703, 777, 784, 814, 823 

EXCHANGE: See LAND 

EXCHANGE, 11, 49, 50, 52, 

68, 79, 100, 113, 150, 175, 

218, 220, 240, 248, 251-253, 

281, 284, 286, 391, 396, 445, 

446, 483, 536, 628, 631, 632, 

635, 639, 641, 643, 645, 668, 

678, 690, 720, 738 

EXISTING ROADS AND 

TRAILS:-, 50, 58, 357, 370, 

429, 454, 581, 602 

EXOTIC SPECIES, 48, 

315, 498, 507, 774 

EXTREME TECHNICAL 

TRAIL DRIVING, 696,707 

F 

FEDERAL LAND 

POLICY AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT 

(FLPMA), s-iii, 20, 30, 390, 

661, 684, 709, 732 

FIRE MANAGEMENT, 2, 

6, 9, 19, 11, 13-15, 17-21, 50, 

57, 223-236, 275, 278, 286, 

287, 296, 300, 302, 307, 311, 

319, 327, 329, 340, 352, 359, 

369, 372, 385, 419, 420, 442, 

443, 450, 451, 460, 476, 488, 

507, 526, 532, 554, 574, 575, 

585-598, 600, 606, 617, 625, 

649, 651, 659, 679, 712, 727, 

729, 730, 740, 773, 774, 786, 

787-789, 792, 794, 796, 797, 

799, 801=804, 806, 821-825, 

827, 828 

FORAGE, 15, 83, 93, 120-

122, 128, 130, 153, 154, 160, 

205, 208, 271, 313, 315, 318, 

320, 354-356, 359, 368, 371-

373, 416, 421, 441, 475, 491, 

494, 497, 499, 504, 505, 507-

509, 573, 575, 577, 578, 581, 

584, 585, 600, 602-605, 607, 

642, 669, 672, 678-680, 683, 

690, 691, 701, 734, 756, 757, 

777, 791, 796, 800, 806 

FRONT COUNTRY RMZ, 

44, 59, 60, 93, 94, 131, 133, 

166, 167, 172, 174, 244, 249, 

310, 334, 439, 440, 455, 472, 

484, 485, 502, 503, 519, 521, 

522, 524, 543, 544, 546-548, 

551, 522, 569-572, 582, 599, 

707. 

G 

GENETIC DIVERSITY, 

223, 315, 437, 497, 499, 603, 

671, 680, 707 
 Index 

802 

GEOCACHING, 245, 707 

GRAZING PERMIT, 93, 

225, 234, 288, 355, 416, 417, 

579-582, 642, 665, 680, 707, 

734 

GROUNDWATER, 240, 

401, 402, 406, 459, 478, 481, 

486, 668, 670, 680, 696, 703, 

727-729, 733 

H 

HABITAT, 13, 14, 17, 22, 

24, 35-38, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 

54, 60, 68, 74, 83, 91, 108, 

120, 121, 125, 128, 130, 146, 

149, 153, 158, 160, 162, 165-

167, 171, 184, 186, 191, 192, 

194, 199, 205, 204, 217-223, 

225, 227-230, 235-239, 242, 

243, 252, 269, 271-274, 279, 

280, 282, 284, 288, 289, 291, 

293, 295, 297, 305, 309, 313, 

317, 318, 320, 321, 323, 332, 

333, 347, 356, 362, 371-373, 

376, 382, 394, 402-408, 420, 

421, 434-437, 441, 443, 444, 

446, 449, 453, 461, 470, 471, 

478, 483, 490, 492-511, 514, 

516, 524, 537, 538, 557, 567, 

575, 577, 580, 592, 597, 603-

606, 663, 671, 672, 674, 676, 

680-684, 691, 697, 704, 706. 

720, 729, 730, 734, 736, 754, 

767, 669, 720, 729, 730, 774-

776, 779, 785, 788, 791, 794, 

795, 

HANG GLIDING, 8, 23, 79, 

113, 115, 150, 197, 545 

HARCUVAR 

MANAGEMENT UNIT, 

 4, 6, 8, 10, 70 86-88, 103, 

125, 126, 158, 159 

HARQUAHALA 

MANAGEMENT UNITS, 

83, 112, 119, 121, 123, 138, 

149, 152, 153, 156, 177, 195, 

208, 209, 302, 455, 462 

HARQUAHALA 

MOUNTAIN SUMMIT 

ROAD, 297, 304, 395, 433, 

434, 435, 443, 444, 467, 562-

564, 707, 791 

HASSAYAMPA 

MANAGEMENT UNITS, 

 5, 112, 76, 77, 82, 83, 107, 

113, 119, 138, 143, 149, 152, 

177, 185, 193, 195, 202-204, 

208, 455, 462, 584, 638, 708, 

724, 727 

HAZARDOUS 

MATERIAL SITES 

(HAZMAT), 428, 707, 659, 

681 

HERBACEOUS, 273, 274, 

275, 303, 488, 505, 671, 681, 

684

HERBICIDES, 274, 276, 

277 

HERD AREA (HA), 681, 

756, 757, 606, 681.

HERD MANAGEMENT 

AREA (HMA), 19, 271, 420, 

461, 508, 681, 706, 707, 742 

HISTORICAL SITE, 120, 

155, 206, 681 

HUNTING, 32, 48, 62, 65-

67, 98, 99, 164, 154, 205, 

230, 232, 244, 252, 289, 332, 

336, 339, 381, 403, 408, 412, 

437, 456, 521, 534, 535, 537, 

542, 549, 552, 554, 554, 555, 

557, 558, 678, 707, 741, 791, 

800, 805

I 

IMPLEMENTATION 

PLAN, 289, 699, 724, 741, 

779, 816, 

INSTREAM WATER 

RIGHT, 699, 674 

INVASIVE SPECIES, 6, 

12, 50, 227, 228, 313-315, 

317, 319, 354, 356, 496, 501, 

504, 574, 674 

J 

K 

KNOWN CULTURAL 

SITES, 22, 410, 591, 699 

L 

LAND ACQUISITION, 79, 

113, 128, 150, 251, 299, 322, 

345, 355, 479, 490, 509, 559, 

560, 572, 573 

LAND DISPOSAL, 17, 22, 

54, 136, 254, 301, 304, 309, 

355, 390, 400, 428, 445, 463-

465, 467, 510, 559, 560, 621, 

624, 633, 679, 700, 707, 725, 

LAND EXCHANGE, 219, 

396, 446, 707 

LAND TENURE, 8, 11, 12, 

70, 74, 83, 86, 100, 104, 108, 

113, 121, 125, 126, 136, 139, 

145, 149, 156, 156-162, 175, 

178, 182, 186, 195, 208, 212, 

214-216, 218,219, 211, 220, 

254, 284, 301, 395, 446, 453, 

483, 498, 578, 597, 708727, 

728

LAND HEALTH 

STANDARDS (ALHS), 17, 

18, 10, 39, 46, 48, 50, 55, 65, 

68, 97, 101, 134, 136, 172, 

176, 216, 218, 221, 226, 231, 

234, 235, 245, 260, 266, 270, 

271, 273, 289, 295, 302, 305, 

306 310, 314, 317, 326, 359, 

364, 372, 416, 441, 459, 470, 

475, 482, 485, 491, 492, 494, 

497, 498, 504, 523, 524, 531, 

583, 594, 605, 642, 658, 664, 

670, 680, 694, 699-706, 742, 

814, 817 

LAND USE 

ALLOCATION, 22, 42, 44, 

45, 58, 60, 65, 70-72, 74, 75, 

77, 71, 85, 87, 89, 90, 97, 

102-103, 106, 111, 118, 124, 

126, 127, 129, 133, 138, 142, 

148, 152, 157, 159, 160, 163-

166, 172, 177, 184, 192, 195, 

202, 210, 215,219, 232, 233, 

240, 241, 248, 259, 267, 712, 

770, 787 
 Index 

803 

LAND USE 

AUTHORIZATION 

(LUA), 46, 47, 50, 53, 58, 

220, 254, 255, 287, 298-300, 

446, 448-451, 559, 560, 565, 

566, 683 

LAND USE PLAN (LUP), 

1, 10, 15, 29, 38-42, 45, 46, 

65, 68, 101, 136, 172, 175, 

195, 207, 218, 220, 223, 231, 

238, 239, 245, 259, 262, 263, 

270, 278, 288, 289-292, 395, 

414, 433, 442, 659, 664, 665, 

678, 679, 694, 703, 734, 740, 

749, 763, 771, 773, 787, 788, 

798, 803, 808 

LEASABLE MINERALS, 

24, 25, 56, 69, 101, 136, 176, 

283, 351, 352, 361, 389, 417, 

418, 459, 460, 476, 487, 553, 

574, 585, 586, 589, 631, 634, 

635, 637, 683 

LIVESTOCK, 8, 18, 54, 55, 

65, 68, 69, 73, 74, 79, 83, 85, 

86, 91, 92, 97, 101, 103, 108, 

115, 120, 130, 133, 134, 136, 

139, 143, 145, 153, 155, 160, 

162, 166, 168, 172, 176, 185, 

186, 206, 217, 224, 225, 234, 

239, 257, 264, 268, 270, 275, 

276, 288, 306, 315, 318, 320, 

326, 331, 338, 339, 344, 345, 

350, 351, 354-359, 360, 361, 

368, 379, 387, 388, 392, 403, 

413, 416, 425, 441, 451, 453, 

458, 459, 475, 480, 485, 486, 

491-494, 496, 497, 500, 504-

506, 508, 511, 512, 523, 524, 

529, 534, 552, 553, 563, 572, 

573, 577, 578, 579, 580-585, 

600, 601, 603-605, 616, 627, 

630, 633, 635, 636, 639, 642, 

669, 670, 672-674, 676, 680, 

683, 687, 688, 690, 691, 726, 

728 

LOCATABLE 

MINERALS, 23-25, 69, 101, 

102, 137, 176, 283, 351, 352, 

361, 388, 417, 418, 442, 460, 

487, 525, 523, 574, 585-589, 

591, 630, 633, 635, 637, 639 

M 

MAJOR RIGHTS OF 

WAY, 375, 610 

MANAGEMENT UNITS 

(MU), 2, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 23, 

24, 43, 51, 70, 89, 90, 100, 

102, 103, 138, 177, 239, 240, 

250, 270, 321, 403, 448, 455, 

462, 485, 486, 510, 632, 706 

MECHANIZED 

VEHICLE, 73, 76, 82, 86, 

88, 90, 102, 106, 111, 118, 

120, 126, 128, 137, 142, 148, 

152, 158, 159, 161, 163, 176, 

184, 192, 203, 210, 215, 267, 

268, 341, 378, 550, 553, 601, 

608, 703, 714:

MINERAL ENTRY, 46, 57, 

69, 74, 76, 102, 103, 106, 

108, 111, 116, 118, 120, 124, 

139, 142-145, 148, 149, 151, 

152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 176, 

184, 186, 192, 271, 282, 283, 

308, 313, 359, 385, 388, 441, 

442, 460-481, 486, 487, 490, 

493, 506, 507, 525, 563, 584, 

589-593, 601, 616, 624, 630, 

684, 708 

MINERAL MATERIAL 

DISPOSAL, 56, 69, 74, 76, 

86, 102, 103, 106, 108, 110-

112, 116, 118, 120, 121, 124, 

137, 139, 142-145, 148, 149, 

151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 

160, 161, 176, 184, 192, 271, 

321, 340, 365, 384, 389, 460, 

488, 506, 507, 553, 554, 563, 

586, 589, 591, 594, 616, 617, 

624, 625, 631, 634, 635, 637, 

639, 684, 708 

MINERAL RIGHTS, 27, 

29, 31, 446, 475, 601, 698, 

708, 730 

MINERAL 

WITHDRAWAL, 11, 56, 

57, 72, 82, 126, 127, 159, 

163, 203, 215, 708, 709

MINING PLAN OF 

OPERATIONS (MPO), 

248, 459, 684, 689, 708

MONITORING, 1, 11, 49, 

64, 65, 72, 79, 81, 117, 133, 

141, 150, 151, 172, 183, 191, 

198, 200, 202, 217, 224-226, 

228, 229, 233-236, 241, 243, 

259, 260, 266, 272, 278, 279, 

287-291, 328, 411, 412, 421, 

428, 457, 486, 488, 512-518, 

520, 522, 527, 528, 549, 637, 

672, 684, 695, 708 

MOTORIZED TRAIL, 31, 

66, 67, 76, 82, 98, 99, 107, 

108, 110, 111, 115, 116, 119, 

123, 134, 141, 142, 144, 146, 

148, 171, 175, 180, 183-185, 

189, 192, 193, 197-200, 

MULTIPLE USES, 32, 79, 

218, 250, 251, 282, 694, 708, 

765, 808 

N 

NATIONAL AMBIENT 

AIR QUALITY 

STANDARD (NAAAQS), 

732 

NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT (NEPA), 4, 

11, 47, 279, 685, 708 

NATIONAL HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION ACT OF 

1966, AS AMENDED 

(NHPA), 685, 708 

NATIONAL REGISTER 

OF HISTORIC PLACES 

(NRHP), 14, 23, 35, 46, 48, 

48, 120, 153, 205, 241, 243, 

256, 258, 321, 411, 512, 523, 

685, 686, 738, 739, 741, 742 

NATIONAL WILD AND 

SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

SYSTEM, 35, 661, 677, 686 

NATIVE AMERICAN, 38, 

39, 71, 74, 78, 84, 87, 88, 

104,109, 114, 122, 140, 156, 

179, 186, 196, 206, 213, 228, 

229, 235, 243, 408, 412, 454, 

462, 515, 516, 517, 660, 674, 

681738, 739, 741 
 Index 

804 

NATIVE SPECIES, 6, 48, 

55, 217, 218, 226-228, 235, 

314, 315, 408, 498, 686, 824, 

829 

NOXIOUS WEED, 48, 235, 

276, 360, 578, 687, 708 

O 

OFF-HIGHWAY 

VEHICLE (OHV), 8, 22, 

23, 45, 58, 66, 67, 71-73, 75, 

76, 78-82, 84, 98, 99, 105, 

110, 111, 115-119, 123, 127, 

135, 140-142, 146, 148, 150-

152, 173, 174, 178, 180-183, 

185, 189-193, 197-204, 214, 

247, 249, 251, 252, 267-269, 

272, 282, 290, 302-308, 310, 

312, 313, 317, 320, 330, 331, 

335-337, 340, 341, 348, 357, 

360, 371, 372, 375, 376, 378, 

381, 384, 386, 391, 412-415, 

424, 439, 444, 454-456, 461-

464, 467, 468, 470-474, 477, 

479, 481, 482, 484, 485, 489-

491, 502, 509, 529, 530, 545-

551, 554, 555, 558, 569, 581, 

582, 602, 605, 606, 608, 609, 

611, 636, 641, 645, 660, 673, 

687, 693, 700, 708, 726, 728-

730, 765, 767, 791, 793, 800, 

802, 805, 807 

OFF-ROAD TRAVEL, 789 

OFF-ROAD VEHICLE 

(ORV), 464, 466, 660, 687, 

708, 779 

OHV DESIGNATION, 58, 

183, 185, 357, 708 

OIL AND GAS, 50, 56, 58, 

417, 418, 445, 475, 586, 587, 

664, 683, 690, 708 

OPEN AREA, 

367,586,599,708 

OUTSTANDING 

NATURAL AREA (ONA), 

43, 434, 660, 687, 708, 770 

ORGANIZED GROUP 

ACTIVITY, 689 

P 

PAINTBALL, 245, 261, 708 

PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES, 14-20, 22, 

49, 232, 233, 287, 301, 305, 

309, 316, 324, 328, 329, 412, 

417, 438, 450, 454, 472, 483, 

501, 520, 528-532, 542, 569, 

593, 599, 605, 613, 622, 651, 

652, 684, 687, 688 

PASSAGE RMZ, 44, 60, 65, 

67, 93, 94, 97, 131, 133, 166, 

170, 172, 245, 249, 301, 309, 

310 316, 348, 455, 456, 484, 

485, 502, 503, 520, 530, 

531551, 569, 571, 572, 583, 

708 

PEEPLES VALLEY 

MANAGEMENT UNITS, 

75, 138, 159-161, 252, 407, 

801 

PERENNIAL STREAM, 3, 

35, 404, 406, 410, 708, 824, 

825 

PERMIT, 10, 15, 3, 31, 47, 

49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 61-65, 69, 

71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 82, 84-88, 

90, 93-96, 102, 103, 107, 

111, 119, 121, 124-126, 128, 

129, 131-133, 139, 140, 142, 

145, 146, 148, 152, 154, 156-

158, 165, 167, 170-172, 174, 

177, 183, 185, 220, 229, 733, 

734, 737, 738, 740, 741, 765,

769, 781-785, 794, 804, 817, 

821, 829

PETROGLYPH, 61, 62-64, 

94-96, 132, 133, 168, 169, 

184, 294, 467-439, 511, 518, 

519, 525, 708, 719, 754, 804 

PLANNING CRITERIA, 1, 

10, 38, 708, 731, 732, 740 

PLANT COMMUNITY, 68, 

218, 226, 235, 288, 403, 600, 

659, 668, 673, 676, 677, 702, 

708, 734, 790 

PRESCRIBED FIRE 

(BURNING), 690 

PRIMITIVE 

RECREATION, 10, 18, 19, 

43, 44, 67, 85, 90, 106, 108, 

123, 129, 135, 141, 144, 154, 

157, 158, 171, 183, 192, 205, 

209, 231, 330, 334, 338, 340, 

373, 383, 384, 387, 391, 439, 

473, 522, 533-535, 543, 544, 

547, 548, 551-554, 559, 607, 

617, 621-623, 625, 632, 6.36, 

637, 643, 644, 690, 791, 805, 

814 

PRIORITY SPECIES, 758, 

759 

PRIVATE PROPERTY 

(INHOLDINGS), 758

PRONGHORN, 6, 27, 35, 

48, 50, 92, 93, 130, 164-170, 

223, 239, 293, 305, 313-316, 

318-320, 323, 332, 341, 403, 

434, 436, 470, 471, 491, 496, 

499-502, 506-509, 514, 538, 

539, 556, 557, 597, 641, 708, 

720, 758, 759, 778, 804, 805

PROPER FUNCTIONING 

CONDITION (RIPARIAN 

WETLAND AREAS - 

PFC), 758 

Q 

QUALITY OF LIFE, 145, 

188, 197, 424, 708, 

R 

RANCHING, 14, 16, 35, 59, 

77, 92, 113, 120, 154, 164, 

195, 205, 252, 257, 396, 409, 

425, 434, 628, 629-630, 641, 

671, 696, 753, 753, 758, 791, 

795, 800

RANGE IMPROVEMENT, 

234, 288, 317, 345, 356-359, 

368, 435, 506, 577, 578, 580-

582, 600, 669, 691, 708, 734, 

792, 800 

RANGELAND, 3, 4, 8, 21, 

39, 46, 48-50, 55, 65, 68, 97, 

101, 133, 134, 136, 172, 175, 

176, 216, 218, 221, 226, 228, 

234-236, 271, 273, 284, 295, 
 Index 

805 

300, 302, 306, 310, 315, 317, 

326, 329, 338, 350, 354, 357, 

358, 359, 363, 368, 372, 379, 

384, 394, 416, 44, 450, 458, 

459, 475, 485, 486, 497, 498, 

504, 523, 524, 534, 552, 572, 

573, 577, 580, 582-585, 593, 

600, 605, 623, 624, 642, 664, 

668-670, 677, 680, 685, 690, 

691, 694, 699, 706, 708, 734, 

741, 742, 756, 775, 790, 794, 

799, 829

RAPTOR, 112, 121, 124, 

125, 149, 152, 155, 194, 207, 

222, 227, 261, 315, 361, 480, 

491-494, 497, 590, 690, 620, 

708, 761, 790, 795, 794, 799, 

804

RECOVERY, 40, 73, 108, 

143, 186, 218, 223, 288, 289, 

302, 315, 340, 450, 459, 461, 

479, 498, 513, 525, 600, 660, 

674, 675, 696, 708, 730, 750, 

784, 829

RECREATION AND 

PUBLIC PURPOSE ACT 

(R&PP), 51, 708

RECREATION 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

(RMZs), 11, 44, 60, 93, 131, 

166, 180, 196, 246, 543, 545, 

547, 548, 550, 692, 708 

RECREATION 

OPPORTUNITY 

SPECTRUM (ROS), 180, 

197, 263, 412, 660, 692, 709 

RECREATION 

SETTINGS, 69, 72, 75, 78, 

79, 85, 99, 102, 105, 106, 

110, 115-118, 123, 138, 141, 

145, 147, 151, 154, 177, 180, 

188, 190-198, 201, 202, 205, 

213, 230, 231, 244, 246, 248, 

249, 260, 262, 263, 267-270, 

297, 338, 343, 346, 380, 

439,444, 542, 543, 545, 546, 

550, 553, 554, 558, 559, 565, 

614, 615, 622, 624, 692, 709

RECREATIONAL 

TARGET SHOOTING, 63, 

64, 72, 75, 94, 96, 97, 132, 

133, 146, 168, 169, 171, 183, 

189, 190, 202, 263, 272, 334, 

335, 357, 542, 544, 546, 582, 

709 

RESEARCH NATURAL 

AREA (RNA), 43, 440, 660, 

709

RESOURCE 

CONSERVATION AREA 

(RCA), 2, 51, 57, 660, 694, 

709

RIGHT OF WAY (ROW, 

610, 313, 375, 660, 

RIPARIAN, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17, 

18, 32, 35, 36, 48-50, 52-56, 

58, 59, 65, 68, 74, 80, 90-92, 

97, 100-102, 107, 108, 113, 

129, 130, 133, 136, 143, 154, 

160-163, 167-172, 176, 184-

186, 192,,199, 205, 206, 217, 

218, 223-226, 235, 252, 275, 

280, 282, 284, 284, 285, 295, 

297, 298, 302, 306, 309-320, 

326, 327, 338, 339, 350, 353, 

354, 358-361, 375, 387-389, 

395, 403-408, 434,-436, 441, 

443, 444, 453-455, 458, 459, 

462, 475, 478, 480-494, 496-

500, 502, 504-507, 509, 523-

526, 552, 563, 564, 573, 575, 

577, 578, 583-585, 591, 592, 

600, , 605, 609, 620, 631, 

633, 635, 639, 660, 690, 695, 

701, 703, 704, 712, 720, 728, 

730, 756, 757, 776, 779, 780, 

784, 790, 791, 800, 804, 806, 

810, 814, 823-828, 830, 831

ROAD, 720, 754, 754, 765, 

767769, 783 

ROCK CRAWLING, 268, 

269, 317, 502, 696, 709 

ROCKHOUNDING, 208, 

709 

ROUTE, 16, 17, 19, 728, 

729, 741, 744, 753, 754, 767-

784, 793, 797, 802, 807, 812-

815, 822

ROUTE DESIGNATION 

PROCESS, 70, 102, 138, 

154, 177, 227, 269, 270, 302, 

317, 325, 378, 455, 473, 474, 

502, 503, 509, 555, 557, 558, 

607, 614, 615, 619, 627, 709, 

745, 746, 744

ROUTES OPEN/CLOSE, 

67, 100, 135, 234, 514, 645 

S 

SALEABLE MINERALS, 

24, 25, 56, 69, 101, 102, 137, 

176, 340, 351, 352, 417, 419, 

442, 460, 487, 553, 574, 585, 

586, 588, 589, 631-635, 639, 

709

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 

35, 36, 232, 323, 325, .328, 

438, 510, 514, 516, 522, 528, 

709 

SCOPING, 1, 4, 12, 37, 38, 

42, 272, 414, 696, 709, 722-

724, 728, 729, 766, 767

SEASONAL GRAZING, 

176, 317, 486, 696, 709

SECTION 7, 

CONSULTATION, 238, 

291, 670, 697, 709, 823

SENSITIVE SPECIES, 35, 

36, 218, 219, 280, 284, 367, 

407, 779, 671, 697, 706, 744, 

761, 792, 795, 800, 805

SHOOTING AREAS, 265, 

272, 335 

SOIL DISTURBANCE, 

EROSION, 

COMPACTION, 301-303, 

452, 453, 455-457, 459-461, 

463, 483, 485, 486, 488, 532, 

707, 709

SPECIAL AREA 

DESIGNATION, 1, 5, 6, 8, 

9-12, 16, 17, 22-24, 43, 44, 

46, 51, 59, 70, 73, 77, 82, 83, 

86, 90, 92, 103, 107, 112, 

118-120, 124-126, 130, 138, 

143, 149, 204, 211, 216, 239, 

240, 253, 261, 270, 289, 293, 

295, 298, 300, 747

SPECIAL CULTURAL 

RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT AREA 

(SCRMA), 44, 131, 242, 
 Index 

806 

255, 256, 438, 515,518-520, 

660, 698, 709, 753

SPECIAL RECREATION 

MANAGEMENT AREA 

(SRMA), 11, 60, 93, 113, 

131, 145, 148, 160, 166, 243, 

259, 439, 444, 455, 456, 543-

545, 547, 548, 550, 660, 678, 

692, 698, 708

SPECIAL RECREATION 

PERMIT (SRP), 14, 61, 71, 

74, 78, 84, 87, 88, 103, 131-

133, 139, 140, 165, 167, 229, 

243, 246, 260, 261, 279, 357, 

412, 439, 456, 512, 518, 521, 

543, 545, 547, 549, 550, 581-

583, 671, 672, 698, 709, 747, 

781, 782

SPLIT-ESTATE, 23, 271, 

417, 474

SPECIAL STATUS 

SPECIES, 112, 222, 235, 

217, 497, 504, 680, 698, 709, 

766 

STATE 

IMPLEMENTATION 

PLAN (SIP), 13, 660, 699, 

709, 707, 709, 747

SURFACE OCCUPANCY, 

42, 46, 50, 56, 58, 586, 631, 

709, 747 

SURFACE WATER, 9, 13, 

241, 311, 405, 478, 479, 592, 

680, 695, 703

T 

TARGET SHOOTING, 49, 

62-64, 72, 75, 94, 96, 97, 

132, 133, 146, 168, 169, 171, 

183, 189, 190, 202, 263, 272, 

334, 335, 348, 357, 412, 413, 

439, 472, 522, 536, 542, 544-

549, 569, 582, 599, 709 

THREATENED & 

ENDANGERED (T&E) 

SPECIES, 14, 225, 291, 665, 

671, 736

TORTOISE, 221, 222, 805 

TRAIL, 146, -148, 154, 156, 

158, 161-163, 167-171, 173-

175, 177, 178-185, 188, 189, 

192-194, 196, 197-201, 203, 

204, 206, 209, 211-215, 220, 

230, 239, 242, 244-246, 248-

251, 253, 254, 256, 257, 259, 

264, 266, 267-270, 278-282, 

296, 335, 336, 342, 358, 372, 

373, 375, 377, 378, 380, 391, 

405, 409-412, 439, 443, 444, 

454, 461,467, 472-474, 477, 

481, 489, 500, 517-517, 521-

523, 527, 533-535, 544, 545, 

547, 549-553, 555-559, 568, 

569, 575, 581, 582, 598, 599, 

602, 604, 606, 608-610, 614, 

615, 617, 622, 625, 629, 632, 

634, 636, 638, 642-645, 670, 

675, 678, 680, 683, 685, 686, 

692, 693, 696-698, 700, 703, 

707 

TRANSPORTATION 

CORRIDOR, 4, 12, 17, 23, 

24, 47, 52, 60, 68, 70, 92, 

101, 104, 130, 136, 139, 165, 

175, 178, 187, 195, 208, 212, 

219, 240, 254, 285, 286, 314, 

346, 390, 398, 447, 452, 453, 

494, 495, 513, 529, 535, 536, 

565, 566, 596, 632, 634, 636, 

640, 696, 706, 742, 810

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

NETWORK, 69, 102, 137, 

138, 177, 215, 248, 267, 

TOURISM, 2, 13, 27, 71, 

75, 78, 79, 84, 87, 105, 109, 

114, 115, 123, 140, 156, 167, 

179, 180, 188, 196-198, 206, 

213, 247, 250, 251, 267, 270, 

323-325, 328, 412, 424, 510, 

511, 517-522, 527, 677 

U 

UPPER AGUA FRIA 

RIVER BASIN 

MANAGEMENT UNITS 

(MU), 5, 13, 31, 720, 727-

730, 753, 800, 804-806, 832 

URBANIZATION, 13, 230, 

265, 714

URBAN INTERFACE: See 

WILDLAND URBAN 

INTERFACE, 9, 15, 146, 

236, 239, 250, 369, 461, 601, 

661, 701, 704, 714 

UTILITY CORRIDOR, 6, 

13, 22, 52, 60, 65, 68, 72, 81, 

85, 92, 101, 106, 118, 124, 

130, 142, 151-2, 157, 165, 

172, 175, 181 ,184, 187, 202, 

210 ,219, 240 ,272, 280, 286, 

293, 298, 304, 309 313, 322, 

331, 345, 354, 390, 397, 398, 

435, 447-449, 468, 469, 482, 

495, 496, 513, 536, 565, 566, 

579, 693, 707, 708

V 

VEGETATION 

COMMUNITIES, 14, 15, 

17, 36, 83, 120, 122-155, 

205, 207, 237, 239, 274, 369, 

404, 407, 420, 461, 484, 488, 

491, 499, 505, 575, 600, 602, 

668, 704, 709

VEGETATION 

TREATMENTS, 822, 824-

828 

VEHICLE ROUTE, 

60, 72, 75, 76, 78, 78, 80, 82, 

83, 85, 86, 91, 92, 106-108, 

110-112, 116, 119-122, 124, 

125, 127-130, 141, 142, 144-

146, 148-154, 156, 158, 160-

163, 165, 170, 174, 180, 191, 

193, 194, 197, 198, 200, 203-

205, 208, 211, 227, 230, 231, 

234, 240, 242, 245, 249, 250, 

268, 269, 272, 278, 290, 305, 

306, 312, 322, 332, 342, 345, 

371, 373, 374, 377, 386, 387, 

400, 415, 434, 436, 438, 498, 

499, 509, 514, 543, 554, 556, 

558, 563, 564, 580, 581, 597, 

602, 605-607, 609-611, 618, 

626, 638, 714, 733, 734 

VENDING, 61-63, 167, 169, 

170, 253, 261, 262, 623, 689

VISUAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT (VRM), 
 Index 

807 

6, 11, 13-20, 22, 45, 49, 54, 

72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 92, 

100, 105, 106, 108, 110, 113, 

115-117, 124, 127, 141, 144, 

147, 150, 151, 154, 155, 157, 

164, 172, 181, 183, 184, 189, 

191, 192, 195, 197-199, 201, 

202, 206, 207, 210, 214, 233, 

244, 245, 270, 300, 306, 317, 

325, 329, 337, 384, 415, 436, 

440, 450, 458, 474, 485, 494, 

503, 531, 551, 560, 564, 565, 

571, 583 593, 600, 605, 615, 

623, 661, 702, 712, 768, 772-

774, 788 

W 

WASHES, 58, 60, 76, 80, 

82, 85, 86, 106, 107, 110, 

111, 119, 124, 125, 131, 132, 

141, 142, 144, 148, 151, 152, 

155, 168, 172, 187, 200, 207, 

204, 291, 303, 333, 342, 343, 

368, 374, 377, 380, 381,391, 

404-406, 414, 415, 437, 442, 

454, 455, 461, 462, 467, 473, 

474, 483, 487, 491, 500, 501, 

543, 545, 548, 550, 555, 556, 

559, 570, 609, 614, 615, 774, 

775, 783, 784, 789, 793, 798, 

802, 817-819, 822-824, 831

WATER QUALITY, 13, 17, 

48, 218, 221, 226, 235, 241, 

270, 309, 310, 313, 314, 332, 

376, 478, 479, 481-484, 487-

490, 492, 496, 498, 537, 597, 

611, 642, 680, 682, 690, 701, 

732, 733

WATER RESOURCES, 2, 

13, 17, 305, 308-310, 312, 

314, 322, 329, 332, 355, 362, 

366, 371, 375, 382, 401, 402, 

436, 449, 453, 470, 478, 480-

498, 580, 592, 604, 611, 641-

646, 654, 658, 663, 672, 683, 

708, 735

WATER RIGHTS:, 53, 221, 

280, 285, 293, 309, 402, 483, 

497, 498, 650, 741

WILD AND SCENIC 

RIVERS (WSR) , 11, 22, 35, 

39, 44, 46, 59, 92, 130, 395, 

661, 664, 677, 686, 702, 707, 

708, 727, 729, 735 

WILD HORSE AND 

BURROS, 2, 15-21, 57, 284, 

296, 300, 307, 311, 319, 327, 

329, 340, 352, 359, 364, 370, 

372, 379, 385, 392, 394, 420, 

421, 443, 451, 461, 488, 508, 

526, 532, 554, 575, 585, 594, 

602, 603, 606,617-625, 641, 

642, 643-645, 651, 656, 669, 

681

WILDERNESS AREAS 

(WAs), 254, 259, 260, 267, 

279, 283, 293-298, 304, 308, 

330, 331, 344, 345, 365, 374, 

375, 394, 399, 402, 415, 421, 

433, 435-445, 447, 467, 479, 

490, 511, 515, 533, 534, 562, 

563, 610, 761, 794, 796, 800, 

800-803 

WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS, 56. 

60, 67, 68, 76, 559, 616-620, 

624, 625, 627, 764, 770, 771

WILDLIFE WATER 

CATCHMENT, 819, 820

WILDLIFE 

MANAGEMENT AREAS 

(WMAs), 661, 704

WILDLAND URBAN 

INTERFACE (WUI), 15, 

236, 369, 601

WITHDRAWAL, 10, 11, 

50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 69, 72, 82, 

116, 126, 127, 159, 163, 176, 

203, 210, 215, 220, 222, 248, 

254, 446, 480, 580, 590, 678, 

690, 697, 704, 708, 720, 721 

X 

YARNELL, 12, 52, 54, 55, 

77, 79, 112, 113, 115, 149, 

150, 159, 163, 195, 197, 427, 

435, 521, 550, 633, 636, 708, 

723, 725, 801, 803, 808 

Z